

V 


k: 




s 


* 




I 


/ 


(• 

t 



* 




\ 

V 

V 



4 




I 
















r 







* iiw ^■•■- s^Kt- y > 



!: : •' t® xJS 


'■ ' ''V ' 

'■ 


„•''' ■■-. ,.■► •*■.' ‘Mm V'i' i <•/'<>V 

'^. wT' ,'*'*>r‘ ' '.-.V' -u 


.J^ , .V ' . - '-J=. ''-'.glBI'^ • 

:5“' Hsc"^- vB.-’.'f®- • ; '* '.'j' .^; ■■ .-'0. ■„ ,. 


'N y 
fi . 

_ k .1 ♦ 


* > 


/'W, 'ji'' 





•L’t I*- 




v .V . V. r PB "'^'iSP^ 


*. 11 - 

I •, 


I M' .,<_ 







• ’ r 


V -' ’■ 


:^' ^ _ ^5 *1 • V'* ‘ ^ 



> 




TV^' W 4 'V‘’-'‘ii»' „ 


im1', 


A> 






?■■ TO.'^ ■ IMBHFM.y.i/'i'? 

r. >,.•;.'v^v.' -^-v -- ■' /-w '** 

r^.' ^ ^ t?H 'i»..MiX‘UCFri^«lBn 

^ I * 


iM < . ■ *;!?•-■ 


A 


*. I 


¥ f 


f'V*. 

rS:’ v‘'-’.’ ■' ^ 

wrF asRt^: . ' -rv 


.>1 


3 U •> 


j * 


^ (■« 


■» V 


■' ' ,? 



■'■' V * i ^<'4. . ”i .. '.^ "f A ;■%' ■ '* ’ij't' 


Jrym 

"‘vs* 


. P' , 

* ’ ♦ >«. 1 '* , /' 











1 ^ 






„ I' S 

■l#i' ' 

■«■**« 

, .'•■ V. , 






' -^T AtW! 


1 


Tf , 


I V' 


jf r* 

i^-- t • 


^■‘(. ■ A*!!? 



fafij j! 


■'f,. ^ 


^ 4-T 


- ■ 1 • I r • . * * 

.r jv M-- "t' 

.-r.- '^4^:, . *. 




<* -s 


tfi‘ 


K r 




■r> 


- .* 


s r 










i 




m. 

#>.*- V ■' 

^ ' K , i »*■ 

‘ pS;'■ . - . ■ ( 

k P< 

■ '¥■' . .. ' ■ 

yg#' ’■' 

■2^ ■ 1 


w. 


Nw*-. 


« * • 


' '-■ ■ • •' 








i\ 


v 




• w 


1^. 


I I 


‘ , t] 

r '■ . 1 • 







4-. 




'V 


. » 


^f'v' •' 

IPW.V ■ r*’:,! ■v-.-'*. '■''. 


,.2r_ 




■ ;..>^V..: 

f li# ^ ^ • ■ ’*■ 


r ,4 


I- ' 





it 


V vfi^ 




<■1 


'f . 






/• •' 




:i> - 


’ I 


. V 


f 4 


. V * 


r '>' 


V 


:^.’L .^il| ' ¥i' 


» •• 


-y 


♦L f V--' 

.\ ► • - <■,. . 


tt -i: 


. r ^ 

»!. ^ AJk 









« >-J . 


:-:k:4 


‘f* 




'.<r • - 

. 4 .^ '• i ^ .y,--V* 

s^* 'i'.' 


)t*' 



-aVi Jb. 


^:4 


^ I. 




r . j i. . 

■»^ ^ 

• / w ' 



'/'^ A-W*. 

*v 


/' •^: ,511,••. 


' \ 

»'■ ' .'l 



' .* li.. . ±_L.__ , - . / V I9*1TO 'M , '■ •. ■ - 'i' 






■;•» ’'.' •■!! .. .^^ ' ■v %it • »:''■?:■•• ^aai 




^I •, / , V ' . - ' '»•.' V' ',’* T'tSbfJBi^BA 

/ ' V : to • 


* . ^ 






mKi/ •..•• '• . / • ' 

TT^' • 4 » . • ' "'■ * 'v>'>'. '■•* .r 

fr ■ vF‘- 

, ' ■ •' -A ■ .. •. , ; .. -, -V:.', ,rpj'rf^ ■ 


.. \ 


‘-‘r « 


‘i4 t, 


^ '• -r 




,4^,, -■'■V 







V* 

**c* 


* N 

A »- 

. •* * 

V ♦ 


•’ \f . i ' • * 


\ ■ 




■• '/v ‘ 

*7* Crfif' *' '• - 'I • . V 

■#TV ’»* ...►•< 


- < 


» 

. ■ t 


• .-• *• 


f " to ■ ' . ' ':i«y 

» n» r *• (4 ' ■ • ■ * *■ / - '' V* •«*T Tk 

;■ ' •’>, ’ :< i, "- .'i tiSlMI 

• ■' -..v ' ■■ ;■;; ■ "-'ir i'\w;v’|'u',.;','• 


;. -.y' ^ 


.r (. ^ 


y*.- 


ft 


'if •-4i.'.''i I, .; 


►V 

^. ■ hi • 

u • ^ 



■ M v .-* • •. 

i! 

. Wm. 


*'•# » 



V'S ; ,.' 

Lpi'iSr^- ' >''ji*'f 

j 4, ^ ' ' ** BA vFM^BfeSCiaJiv V '. *' * ^ 


t ''•r\ ^ ’ 


jK. • ■ r; . * >'v jF*^ ‘ 

A.-’:' ; ' I, 




■ - ' :y-‘ *?. 

; J • 


> ■? 

• t 

• H 

■‘■•Aj 




f , ‘-A. 


iiriK '" “ 

» ’ «• 1 . 


’ i * 

.- ’ • : '• ,’'f^ 'S- •.•■''■- ,'yK# 




-i i -V V-.^ • ' ' 

■' '>' - Mi. "o 

^ - ' .A IL" ' ' ' ^ i.~ . _ ^ 

. ♦-• ' t,-- ■ S ^-• . '- _ r 

'*»*,. » r 

« ft 




vA .JK' ',^iiBa(f: 


\ » 


. • ♦ 4 “ .4 I -v ■ *..-*«^riil 

■ ■■ ::'.&>■ ti' t; ‘ M 



If ‘ V'. ' ' ♦ • * V 
‘■-v’ . >i:.a^' ;• 


'4„ " ^‘iV . 

K' - S " 


'. ■ I 

k:V-'4’' 


AV 




X ::Vv . 










V' 


/ 

' f ^ 


i>;^.i'jit'A' 



*■' I*' » r #.** ■ • " 

’ .tr.:-'. ; A>r 


*'Uirl' riir^* 'w**( 

*'.1 











ir 

■ •“ 


' rf 

F, * 

$ 

^'• '* j 

V- 

1 

^ r' *■ V 


Sm ^ 

' ^ * 

. ■■*** •', ' 

" m\ 

^ t 

^ A * A i 






.i • 


I ^ * 

fji » 




fS 



:♦ ^ 



f »' 


—V'■ •'• * ‘ ■'' 

•/-.- i;^L*"yi ..V 



■i ... ■ ,>i 







.y 


. ¥• 


L 




' "Vi 

s:‘ 


^r4.. v '. . * , v> 

r'*, '. 'J<n ■■ ,,■ 


' ■ 1'^'■*■^3>■■ '■ ' ' '■ ''V^-^ V 







Sfe'- 






\ pf ^'' j 


.y^'' 




• f<‘: ‘^>.'4^ 


. \ A . - 


\r‘- Pj • ’•' ‘‘ i ^ *-■) TV ' •^•^. » - -o' 

<* ft—v»- ' -J'-: , 


' % *' .lit' 

lii!? !■■* 


u st> . 

• ' 


^iKIJ •'■T, r 

IV >1 

f/' m 


M' '' 

5aK‘ 5*’"- »' 



• ^ ' W! 




i lft»J ‘•it ♦ J ■ - ' ^ , ‘ 'if « * ' . ^ J ' • . - ■^ 

. ■. . ‘jlv V ‘ •> iii 

^ ' ||3%''..' ; '"'a 

' Jr:2<r.iL OcTikiA- 









House Calendar No. 101. 

63d Congress, I HOUSE OF KEPRESENTATIVES. j Report 
M Session. j | No. 570. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY 
ACTIVITIES. 




April 24, 1914. —Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Floyd of Arkansas, from tlie^Committee on tlie Judiciary, 
submitted the following 

EEPORT. 


[To accompany report of committee appointed under H. Res. 198.] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, having had under consideration 
the foUowing House resolution: 

[63d Cong., 2d sess. H. Res. 342. In the House of Representatives. Dec. 9, 1913.] 

Mr. Garrett submitted the following resolution; which was passed by the House, 
page 536, Congressional Record: 

RESOJiUTION. 

Resolved, That the report of the select committee appointed under House resolution 
No. 198, and the findings and testimony, be referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
with directions to report to the House at the earliest practicable date what action, 
if any, should be taken by the House thereon. 

beg leave to submit thereon the following report: 

(1) That it is within the power of the House to punish its Members 
for disorderly behavior and by a two-thirds vote expel a Member.— 
{See art. 1, sec. J, Const. U. S.) 

The two methods of punishment of a Member under the practices 
of the House are by expulsion and by censure.— Hinds’ Precedents^ 
vol. 2, sec. 1255, and cases there cited. 

In the judgment of your committee the power of the House to 
expel or otherwise punish a Member is full and plenary and may be 
enforced by summary proceedings. It is discretionary in character, 
and upon a resolution for expulsion or censure of a Member for mis^ 
conduct each individual Member is at liberty to act on his sound dis¬ 
cretion and vote according to the dictates of his own judgment and 
conscience. This extraordinary discretionary power is vested by the 
Constitution in the collective membership of the respective Houses of 
Congress, restricted by no limitation except in case of expulsion the 
requirement of the concurrence of a two-thirds vote. 

In support of this view and in order to get a clear conception of 
the construction placed upon this provision of the Constitution by 
those who helped to frame it and who construed its provisions in 









2 CHARGEvS AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

the light of contemporaneous history, we call attention to the case 
of John Smith, of Ohio, which arose in the Senate in 1807. The 
principles of law and procedure adopted in that case have been 
generally accepted as sound and have been followed substantially in 
all subsequent cases. Senator John Smith, of Ohio, was indicted in 
the Federal court at Richmond, Va., for alleged complicity in the 
•conspiracy of Aaron Burr. After the acquittal of Burr the indict¬ 
ments against Smith, who was at the time a United States Senator 
from the State of Ohio, were dismissed. Ilis conduct in connection 
with this alleged conspiracy was brought to the attention of the 
Senate and a special committee was appointed to investigate the 
same. After a full investigation of the facts and the law applicable 
to the case, the special committee reported a resolution for the 
•expulsion of Senator Smith. A vote was taken on this resolution, 
which resulted as follows: Yeas 19, nays 10. Two-thirds not having 
voted in the affirmative, the resolution was lost. Senator Smith 
thereupon immediately resigned from the Senate and no further 
action was taken in the case.— {Smith’s Digest of Decisions and Prece¬ 
dents. Mis. Doc., vol. 12, 1893-94, V- 

Mr. Adams submitted the report for the special committee, in which 
J'eport he laid down with, clearness and force the principles of law and 
procedure, which in his judgment and in the judgment of his com¬ 
mittee, should guide Congress and either House thereof in dealing with 
a Member under charges of improper conduct. The Senate sustained 
and followed the recommendations of the committee as to its power 
to deal with a Member for improper conduct in a summary manner— 
unhampered by ordinary and technical rules of procedure in courts 
of law. 

While perfectly aware that there are and have always been two 
schools of thought on this question, your committee considers the 
principles enunciated and the views expressed by Mr. Adams in his 
admirable report as sound to-day, sustained by reason and common 
sense and by unbroken precedent for a hundred years. We submit 
and quote with approval the following extracts from Mr. Adams’s 
report: 

In examining the question whether these forms of judicial proceedings or the rules 
of judicial evidence ought to be applied to the exercise of that censorial authority 
which the Senate of the United States possesses over the conduct of its Members, 
let us assume as the test of their application, either the dictates of unfettered reason, 
■the letter and spirit of the Constitution or precedents domestic or foreign, and your 
'committee believe that the result will be the same; that the power of expelling a 
Member must in its nature be discretionary, and in its exercise always more summary 
than the tardy process of judicial tribunals. 

The power of expelling a Member for misconduct results, on principles of common 
»ense, from the interest of the Nation, that the high trust of legislation should be 
invested in pure hands. When the trust is elective, it is not to be presumed that the 
constituent body will deposit it in the keeping of worthless characters. But when 
^ man whom his fellow citizens have honored with their confidence on the pledge of a 
spotless reputation has degraded himself by the commission of infamous crimes, which 
becomes suddenly and unexpectedly revealed to the world, defective indeed would 
be that institution which would be impotent to discard from its bosom the contagion 
of such a member; which should have no remedy of amputation to apply until the 
poison has reached the heart. 

Again quoting from Mr. Adams’s report, we submit the following: 

By the letter of the Constitution, the power of expelling a Member is given to each 
of the two Houses of Congress, without any limitation other than that which requires 

concurrence of two-thirds of the votes to give it effect. 


D. OF a 
MAY a -£914 


I CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 3 

have quoted the above extracts from Mr. Adams’s report 
" because the views therein expressed were advanced and promulgated 
A by men who were instrumental in establishing our independence, 
in forming the Union, and in framing the Constitution of the United 
States. While persons accused of offenses and counsel representing 
them have always taken the opposite view and uniformly contended 
for the principles governing trials in judicial proceedings and for 
the observance of technical rules of law in the trial of such cases, yet 
we have failed to find in the numerous precedents that have arisen 
under this particular provision of the Constitution where either House 
of Congress has ever disclaimed its power to deal summarily with 
a Member for flagrant misconduct or has, in the exercise of its author¬ 
ity, deviated from the fundamental principles laid down by Mr. 
Adams in his report on the Smith case. 

The question has been raised and discussed as to whether or not 
the House has the power to expel or punish a Member for misconduct 
in a preceding or former Congress of which he was also a Member.— 
(See Hinds^ Precedents, vol. 2, sec. 1286.) 

In a case in which the conduct of Oakes Ames, a Representative 
from Massachusetts, and James Brooks, a Representative from the 
State of New York, was under investigation by a special committee, 
the report of the special committee having been referred to the Com¬ 
mittee on the Judiciary, Mr. Benjamin F. Butler, of Massachusetts, 
made a report from the Judiciary Committee of the House, in which 
it was stated: 

Your committee is constrained to believe that the power of expelling a Member 
for some alleged crime committed, it may be, years before his election, is not within 
the constitutional prerogative of the House. 

The special committee having the matter under investigation 
reached an opposite conclusion and offered a resolution for the expul¬ 
sion of Oakes Ames and James Brooks, Representatives as aforesaid. 

The statement of the facts in the report of the special committee 
shows that the transactions complained of occurred in a former Con¬ 
gress, four or five years before they were brought to the attention of 
the House by the report of the investigating committee. 

The foUovdng is an extract taken from the report of the investi¬ 
gating committee: 

In considering what action we ought to recommend to the House upon these facts, 
the committee encounters a question which has been much debated. Has this House 
the power and jurisdiction to inquire concerning offenses committed by its Members 
prior to their election and to punish them by censure or expulsion? The committee 
are unanimous upon the right of jurisdiction of this House over the cases of Mr. Ames 
and Mr. Brooks upon the facts found in regard to them. Upon the question of juris¬ 
diction, the committee present the following views: 

The Constitution, in the fifth section of the first article, defines the power of either 
House as follows: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish 
its Members for disorderly behavior, and with the concurrence of two-thirds expel a 
Member.” 

It will be observed that there is no qualification of the power, but there is an 
important qualification of the manner of its exercise—it must be done “with the 
concurrence of two-thirds.” 

The close analogy between this power and the power of impeachment is deserving 
of consideration. 

The great purpose of the power of impeachment is to remove an unfit and unworthy 
incumbent from office, and though a judgment of impeachment may to some extent 
operate as punishment, that is not the principal object. Members of Congress are 
not subject to be impeached, but may be expelled, and the principal purpose of 


4 CllAKUES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


expulsion is not as punishment, ])ut to remove a Member wliose character and con¬ 
duct show that he is an unlit man to participate in the deliberations and decisions 
of the body and whoso presence in it tends to bring the body into contempt and dis¬ 
grace. 

In both cases it is a power of purgation and purification to be exercised for the 
public safety, and in the case of expulsion for the protection and character of the 
House. The Constitution defines the causes of impeachment, to wit: “Treason, 
bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” The ofiice of the power of expul¬ 
sion is so much the same as that of the power to impeach that we think it may be 
safely assumed (hat whatever would be a good cause of impeachment would also be 
a good cause of expulsion. 

■It has never been contended that the power to impeach for any of the causes 
enumerated was intended to be restricted to those wdiich might occur after appoint¬ 
ment to a civil ofiice, so that a civil officer who had secretly committed such offense 
before his appointment should not upon detection and exposure be convicted and 
removed from ofiice. Every consideration of justice and sound policy would seem 
to require that the public interest be secured, and those chosen to be their guardians 
be free from the pollution of high crimes, no matter at what time that pollution has 
attached. 

If this is so in regard to other civil officers, under institutions which rest upon the 
intelligence and virtue of the people, can it well be claimed that the law-making 
Representative may be vile and criminal with impunity, provided the evidences of 
his corruption are found to antedate his election? (See Hinds'' Precedents, vol. 2, sec. 
1286 .) 

When the cases of Ames and Brooks were brout^ht np in the House 
and a resolution of expulsion was offered, the following resolution 
was offered as a substitute, to wit: 

Whereas by the report of the special committee herein it appears that the acts charged 
as offenses against Members of this House in conimction with the Credit Mobilier 
occurred more than five years ago and long before the election of such persons to 
this (/ongress, two elections by the people having intervened; and 
Whereas grave doubts exist as to the rightful exercise by tliis llouse of its power to 
expel a Member for offenses committed by such Member long before his election 
thereto and not connected with such election: Therefore 

Resolved, That tlie special committee be discharged from the further consideration of 
this subject. 

Resolved, That the House absolutely condemns the conduct of Oakes Ames, a 
Member of this House from Massachusetts, in seeking to procure congressional atten¬ 
tion to the affairs of a corporation in wliich he was interested, and whose interest 
directly depends upon the legislation of Congress, by inducing Mend)ers of Congress 
to invest in the stocks of said corporation. 

Resolved, That this House absolutely condemns the conduct of James Bfooks, a 
Member of this House from New York, for the use of his position of Government 
director of the Union Pacific Railroad and of Member of this House to procure the 
assignment to himself or family of stock in the Credit Mobilier of America, a corporation 
having a contract with the Union Pacific Railroad, and whose interests depended 
directly upon the legislation of Congress. 

The substitute was adopted; yeas 115, nays 110. 

Thereupon voting began on the original resolution, as amended by 
the substitute, the first vote being taken on the resolution condemning 
Oakes Ames. _ This was adopted; yeas 182, nays 30. 

The resolution condemning James Brooks was agreed to; yeas 174, 
nays 32. ^ 

The preamble was disagreed to. {See' Hinds' Precedents, vol. 2, 
sec. 1286, j). 853.) 

In this case the Judiciary Committee concluded and reported that 
the House was without power to punish a Member for offenses com¬ 
mitted before his election. The House ignored the recommendations 
of the Judiciary Committee and punished two of its Members by 
censure and declined to express doubt as to its power and jurisdiction 
by refusing to adopt the ])reamble.' In the judgment of’ your com- 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 5 

mittee, the power of the House to expel or punish by censure a 
Member for misconduct occurring before his election or in a preceding 
or former Congress is sustained by the practice of the House, sanc¬ 
tioned by reason and sound policy and in extreme cases is absolutely 
essential to enable the House to exclude from its deliberations and 
councils notoriously corrupt men, who have unexpectedly and sud¬ 
denly dishonored themselves apd)jbfltirayed the public by acts and 
conduct rendering them junwristhy'^ 'thie high position of honor and 
trust reposed in them, uoii^oup 

But in considering this Question and in arriving at the conclusions 
we have reached, we would not have you unmindful of the fact that 
we have been dealing with the question merely as one of power, and 
it should not be confused with the question of policy also involved. 
As a matter of sound policy, this extraordinary prerogative of the 
House, in our judgment, should be exercised only in extreme cases 
and alwaj^s with great caution and after due circumspection, and 
should be invoked with greater caution where the acts of misconduct 
complained of had become public previous to and were generally 
known at the time of the Member’s election. To exercise such power 
in that instance the House might abuse its high prerogative, and in 
our opinion might exceed the just limitations of its constitutional 
authority by seeking to substitute its own standards and ideals for the 
standards and ideals of the constituency of the Member who had 
deliberately chosen him to be their Representative. The effect of 
such a policy would tend not to preserve but to undermine and 
destroy representative government. 

POWER OF THE HOUSE OVER CONTEMPTS. 

(2) That it is within the power of the House to j)unish for contempts 
persons other than Members for offenses against its Members, officers, 
or employees, or for interfering vdth its proceedings, or for offenses 
affecting the dignity, orderly procedure, or integrity of the House. 
{House Manual and Digest; 62d Cong., 3d sess., p. 98, Hinds' Prece¬ 
dents, secs. 287 to 292, inclusive; Anderson v. Dunn, 6 Wheaton, 204; 
Kilbourn.Y. Thompson, 103 U. S., 168; In re Chapman, 166 U. S. 
Report, 661.) ^ 

The principle is well settled by the cases cited that each House of 
Congress has power to punish for contempt of its authority persons 
other than Members. The power to punish its Membem, it must be 
observed, is derived from express provisions of the Constitution. The 
power to punish persons other than Members for offenses committed 
against either House of (bngress is not found in any express provision 
of the Constitution, but is an implied power inherent in legislative 
bodies as in courts originating from necessity and used as a means of 
self-protection and self-preservation, the exercise of which has long 
been sanctioned by custom and usage under American and English 
jurisprudence. Such a power is necessarily an undefined power, more 
or less arbitrary in its nature, and must be invoked and exercised in 
such summary way as may be deemed best to meet the exigencies of 
the situation arising in each particular case. 

A question has been presented by the record in this case which leads 
to this inquiry: What is the extent or limitation of the punishing 
power of either House of Congress over persons other than Members 


G CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


for acts, conduct, and practices in contempt of its authority or which 
are calculated to interrupt its orderly procedure ? The particular 
question of law raised by this inquiry is. May persons who have been 
guilty of acts of misconduct or practices which were clearly in con¬ 
tempt of the House in a previous Congress be punished by this House 
where it is not shown by the testimony that the acts and practices 
complained of have extended'intol>and affected the proceedings or 
been in contempt'of the authority of‘the present House? 

In this connection a further legal question arises: If the present 
House is not authorized to punish persOnsT'or contempt of the author¬ 
ity of the House in a previous Congress, is it within the prerogative 
of the House to punish by resolution of censure persons other than 
Members who have been shown to have been guilty of reprehensible 
conduct in connection with the affairs of the House in a previous 
Congress ? This question has been directly raised by Subcommittee HI 
of this committee, to which the Garrett resolution was referred. In 
its report the recommendation is made that the following resolution 
touching the conduct of certain officers of the National Association 
of Manufacturers and of the National Council for Industrial Defense 
be reported to the House with recommendation that the same be acted 
upon ])y the House: 

Resolved, Tliat the House strongly condemns tlie conduct of the officers and agents 
of the National Association of Manufacturers, namely, J. Philip Byrd, John Kirby, jr., 
James A. Emery, and M. M. Mulhall, in carrying on improper and reprehensible 
lobby activities and in engaging in sjstematic secret and disreputable practices 
gainst the honor, dignity, and integrity of the House of Representatives, as msclosed 
in the testimony taken by and in the report and findings of the select committee 
appointed under House resolution No. 198. 

The only authority which has been brouglit to the attention of 
your committee bearing directly upon this particular point is found 
m tlie celebrated case of Andrew Jackson, then President of the 
United States. Cn the 2Sth of March, 1834, the Senate declared 
by resolution that Andrew Jackson, in removing tlie deposit of 
public money from the Bank of the United States, had assumed 
authority and power not conferred by the Constitution and laws of 
the United States, but in derogation of both. 

Immediately thereafter President Jackson addressed to the Senate 
a protest, in part as follows: 

The resolution in question was introduced, discussed, and passed not as a joint but 
as a separate resolution. It asserts no legislative power, proposes no legislative 
action, and neither possesses the form nor any of the attributes of a legislative meas¬ 
ure. It does not appear to have been entertained or passed, with any view or expec¬ 
tation of its issuing in a law or joint resolution, or in the repeal of any law or joint 
resolution, or in any other legislative action. 

Whilst wanting both the form and substance of a legislative measure, it is equally 
manifest that the resolution was not justified by any of the executive powers con¬ 
ferred on the Senate. These powers relate exclusively to the consideration of treaties 
and nominations to office, and they are exercised in secret session and with closed 
doors. This resolution does not apply to any treaty or nomination and was passed 
in a public session. 

Nor does this proceeding in any way belong to that class of incidental resolutions 
which relate to the officers of the Senate, to their Chamber, and other appurtenances, 
or to subjects of order and other matters of the like nature—in all which either House 
may lawfully proceed without any cooperation with the other or with the President. 

On the contrary, the whole phraseology and sense of the resolution seem to be 
judicial. Its essence, true character, and only practical effect are to be found in the 
conduct which it charges upon the President and in the judgment which it pro¬ 
nounces on that conduct. The resolution, therefore, though discussed and adopted 




CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 7 


by the Senate in its legislative capacity, is, in its office, and in all its characteristics, 
essentially judicial. 

That the Senate possesses a high judicial power, and that instances may occur in 
which the President of the United States will be amenable to it, is undeniable. But 
under the provisions of the Constitution it would seem to be equally plain that neither 
the President nor any other officer can be rightfully subjected to the operation of the 
judicial power of the Senate except in the cases and under the forme prescribed by 
the Constitution, 

The President then proceeded to show— 

the proceedings of the Senate to have been extrajudicial and the mere fulmination 
of a censme, such as might come from a “mass meeting” and finding no warrant in 
any right or duty of the body, and intended for nothing but to operate on him per^ 
sonally. (Benton’s Thirty Years’ View, vol. 1, p. 426.) 

On March 16, 1837, the Senate, by resolution, expunged the resolu¬ 
tion of censure from its Journal, declaring as its first reason: 

And whereas the said resolve was not warranted by the Constitution, and was 
irregularly and illegally adopted by the Senate, in violation of the rights of defense 
which belong to every citizen, and in subversion of the fundamental principles of 
law and justice; because President Jackson was thereby adjudged and pronounced 
to be guilty of an impeachable offense, and a stigma placed upon him as a violator of 
his oath of office and of the laws and Constitution which he was sworn to preserve, 
protect, and defend, without going through the forms of an impeachment and without 
allowing to him the benefits of a trial or the means of defense. (Benton’s Thirty 
Years’ View, vol. 1, p. 718.) 

It ^\fill be observed that in the case of Andrew Jackson, the Senate 
in the first instance passed the resolution, but three years later 
expunged the resolution of censure from its journal on the express 
ground that the same was not warranted by the (’onstitution and 
was irregularly and illegally adopted by the Senate in violation of 
the rights of defense which belong to every citizen, and in subversion 
of the fundamental principles of law and justice. 

On March 5, 1860, Mr. John Covode, of Pennsylvania, moved the 
adoption of a resolution appointing a committee of five Members 
to investigate whether the President or any other ofiicer had sought 
by improper means to influence the action of C’ongress against the 
passage of any law and whether the officers of the Government or 
the President have failed to compel the execution of any law, etc. 
The resolution was agreed to and the committee appointed, where¬ 
upon on March 29, 1860, President Buchanan in a special message pro¬ 
tested against the resolution as an invasion of the Executive power 
and the indorsement of vague charges against the Executive without 
permitting him to be heard. This special message was referred to 
the Committee on the Judiciary, who reported on April 9, 1860, a 
resolution dissenting from the doctrines contained in the special 
message and saying in part: 

The President of the United States under the Constitution posesses neither privi¬ 
lege nor immunity beyond the humblest citizen, and is less favored in this respect 
than Senators and Representatives in Congress. * * * He can make no plea 
which is denied to any other citizen and is subject to the same scrutiny, trial, and 
punishment, with the proceedings, hazards, and penalties of impeachment supQr- 
added. The President and the citizen stand upon equality of rights. The dis¬ 
tinction between them arises from an inequality of duties. Wherever the conduct 
of the latter is open to inquiry and charge, that of the former is not the less so. * * * 

To repeat the point: The President is not in any respect superior to the citizen merely 
because he is bound to discharge more numerous duties; and he is not coequal with 
that branch of Government which helps to impose and define those duties. (2d 
Hinds., p. 1044.) 


8 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES, 


The committee distinguished between this case and the protest of 
President Jackson against the Senate resolution of March 28, 1834, 
wherein the President was censured, the resolution in that case im¬ 
properly proposing censure, but in this case merely an inquiry. 

Your committee is not prepared to say that on account of the failure 
of Congress to exercise a power or by reason of the limited number of 
precedents bearing upon the particular question, that no case could 
arise wherein the assertion of such power would be necessary in order 
to protect the House or the dignity and honor of its membership, 
but in searching the precedents we have failed to find a single case 
in which either House of Congress ever attempted to punish persons 
other than Members for contempts committed m a previous Congress. 
The only case we have been able to find in wliich Congress undertook 
to punish a person other than a Member by an alfirniative resolution 
of censure is in the case of President Andrew Jackson, already referred 
to. If it should be contended that the adoption of the resolution of 
censure in that case is a precedent for such action, the contention is 
at once answered by subsequent action on the expunging resolution 
which was later adopted by the Senate in the same case. There can 
be no question that Congress has a right to inquire into the conduct 
of persons in their relation to its affairs in previous Congresses for the 
purpose of gathering information which may be used as a basis for 
remedial legislation or in dealing with its own Members. The right of 
either House of C^ongress to punish for contempts of its authority or 
for interfering with its proceedings is no longer questioned, but it has 
been held that the punishment in each particular case ceases with 
the termination of the Congress that imposed it. This is held in the 
case of Anderson v. Dunn, already cited. In that case the Supreme 
Court in discussing the extent and limitation of this power says: 

Analogy and the nature of the case furnish the answer, “the least possible power 
adequate to the end proposed,” which is the power of imprisonment. It may at 
first view and from the history of the practice of our legislative bodies be thought to 
extend to other inflictions. But every other will be found to be mere commutation 
or confinement since commitment alone is the alternative when the individual proves 
contumacious. And even to the duration of imprisonment a period is imposed by 
the nature of things, since the existence of the power that imprisons is necessary to 
its continuance; and while the legislative power continues perpetual, the legislative 
body ceases to exist on the moment of its adjournment or periodical dissolution. It 
follows that imprisonment must terminate with that adjournment. 

From the reasoning and conclusions reached by the Supreme Court 
in the opmion from which we have just quoted, it is manifest 
that the power of a legislative body to punish or censure persons 
other than Members rests upon an entirely different principle from its 
power to deal with its own members, and begins with the opening of 
each Congress and terminates with its adjournment. The exercise 
of such power by either House, it would seem by clearest inference, 
therefore, is limited and restricted to acts or practices in contempt of 
its immediate authority, or, if committed against the authority of the * 
House, in a previous Congress, and complaint thereof is made and 
inquiry into such acts and conduct is instituted by the House in a 
subsequent Congress, the acts and conduct complained of must be 
repeated in defiance of its own authority before punishment can 
properly be imposed therefor. At least the rule heretofore has been 
so limited in practice. 



CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 9 


We have found no precedents to sustain the contention that this 
House has power to punish persons other than Members for acts com¬ 
mitted during the Sixty-second Congress which may have constituted 
contempts of the authority of the then existing House, but which in 
no way relate to the affairs of the present House or its Members, and 
we therefore conclude that grave doubt exists as to its authority to 
do so. 

STATEMENT OF FACTS. 

(3) Your committee in the foregoing pages, having reviewed the 
precedents and enunciated the prmciples of law which, in our opin¬ 
ion, should govern the House in punishing its own Members for dis¬ 
orderly behavior, and persons other than Members for breaches of 
its privileges and contempts of its authority, will now proceed to 
consider certain facts disclosed in the hearings touching the conduct 
of a Member of the House, namely, James T. McDermott, of Illinois, 
and will later in this report submit certain facts concerning the 
operations and activities of the National Association of Manufac¬ 
turers and other associations interested in promoting or defeating 
legislation in the Sixty-second and previous Congresses. 

On July 9, 1913, the House adopted the following resolution:' 

House resolution 198. 

Whereas there have appeared in recent issues of various newspapers published in'7 
the United States divers statements and charges as to the existence and activity 
of a lobby organized by and on behalf of an organization known as the National 
Association of Manufacturers for the purpose of improperly influencing legislation 
by Congress, the official conduct of certain of its members and employees, the 
appointment and selection of committees of the House and for other purposes 
designed to affect the integrity of the proceedings of the House of Representatives 
and its Members: Therefore be it 

Resolved^ That the Speaker appoint a select committee of seven Members of the 
House and that such committee be instructed to inquire into and report upon all 
the matters so alleged concerning said Representatives, and more especially whether 
during this or any previous Congress the lobbyists of the said National Association of 
Manufacturers, or the said association through any officer, agent, or member thereof, 
did, in fact reach or influence, whether for business, political, or sympathetic reasons 
or otherwise, the said Representatives or any one of them or any other Representative 
or any officer or employee of this or any former House of Representatives in or about 
the discharge of their official duties, and if so, when, by whom, and in what manner. 

Said committee shall also inquire whether money has been used or improper 
influence exerted by said National Association of Manufacturers or other person, 
persons, association, or organization or any agent thereof to accomplish the nomina¬ 
tion or election or secure the defeat for nomination or election of any candidate for 
the House of Representatives, and said committee shall likewise inquire whether 
Members of the House of Representatives have been employed by any of said associ¬ 
ations or have knowingly aided said associations or any of them for the accomplish¬ 
ment of any improper purpose whatever. 

Said committee is also directed to inquire whether improper influence has been 
exerted by said association or by any other association, corporation, or person to 
secure or prevent the appointment or selection of any Representative to any com¬ 
mittee of the House in this or any other Congress. 

Said committee shall also inquire whether the said National Association of Manu¬ 
facturers or any other organization or corporation or association or person does now 
maintain or has heretofore maintained a lobby for the purpose of influencing legisla¬ 
tion by Congress and ascertain and report to what extent and in what manner, if at all, 
legislation has been improperly effected or prevented by reason of the existence of 
such lobby, if it be found to exist now or to have existed heretofore. 

Said committee, or any subcommittee thereof, may sit in the city of Washington 
or elsewhere to conduct its investigations during the sessions of the House or recess 
of Congress. All meetings of said committee or any subcommittee, for the taking of 
testimony or hearing of argument, shall be open to the public. It shall have power 


10 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


to employ such legal or clerical assistance as may be deemed necessary, to send for 
persons and papers and administer oaths, and shall have the right to report at any 
time. 

The Speaker shall have authority to sign and the clerk attest subpoenas during the 
recess of Congress. The expenses of said inquiry shall be paid out of the contingent 
fund of the House upon vouchers approved by the select committee signed by the 
chairman thereof, and by the Committee on Accounts, signed by the chairman thereof. 

In accordance with the re.soliition the Speaker appointed as mem¬ 
bers of the committee Messrs. Garrett, of Tennessee; Chne, of In¬ 
diana; Russell, of Missouri; Roddenbery, of Georgia; Stafford, of 
Wisconsin; Willis, of Ohio; and J. I. Nolan, of California. Very 
shortly after his appointment Mr. Roddenbery was forced by the 
illness which subsequently caused his untimely death to resign, and 
Mr. Ferris, of Oklahoma, was appointed to succeed him. At a later 
date Mr. Nolan also retired on account of a severe and protracted 
tjllness, being succeeded by Mr. MacDonald, of Michigan. 

On December 9, 1913, by ap])ropriate resolution heretofore set out, 
the House referred the re]mrt, findings, and testimony of the select 
committee to the Committee on the Judiciary with directions to 
report to the House at the earliest practicable date what action if any 
should be taken by the House thereon. 

Your committee reports that the testimony taken by the select 
committee appointed as aforesaid and the report and findings thereon 
disclose certain facts touching the conduct of James T. McDermott, a 
Representative from the State of Illinois, which, in the judgment of 
your committee, are of such gravity as to require further action 
thereon by the House. In the report of the select committee, pages 
51 to 68, inclusive, will be found a summary of the evidence relating 
to the conduct of Mr. McDermott, from which we quote the following 
extracts, to wit: 


REPRESENTATIVE JAMES T. m’DERMOTT. 

Representative James T. McDermott, of Illinois, is also listed in the summary 
among those whom the N. A. M. had no difficulty in reaching and influencing for 
business, political, or sympathetic reasons, and mentioned in the personal narrative 
of Mulhall. 

******* 

It is true that from the time of Mr. }»IcDermott’s entrance into Congress up to a few 
weeks liefore the publication of the articles in question, the relations between him 
and I. H. McMichael were of an exceedingly intimate and friendly character; and 
they were much together. McMichael did undoubtedly aid him to a very considerable 
extent at times vdth his correspondence and clerical work, both while a chief page of 
the House and during the time subsequent. We think the fair conclusion from all 
the testimony and circumstances developed is that Mr. McDermott knew of the 
employment of McMichael by Mulhall, and that he understood what Mulhall was 
engaged in—that is, that he was a lobbyist for the N. A. M. 

Mr. McDermott has denied in his testimony very vigorously that the relations be¬ 
tween IMulhall and himself ever became close and of an especially friendly character. 
We think, however, that they did. While we are of opinion that Mulhall has exagger¬ 
ated largely the intimacy existing between them, we are, at the same time, of opinion 
that Mr. McDermott has unduly minimized it. Your committee has no doubt that 
these three men were much in each other’s society, that they frequently consorted 
socially together in this city, and were upon terms of perfect understanding and friend¬ 
liness. The e\ddence in the record as to this is too voluminous and convincing to 
admit of any other conclusion. We think, too, that the weight of the testhnony is that 
Mr. IMcDermott did obtain occasional sums of money fr.jm Alulhall, in the way of small 
loans, when they were together, but the testimony convinces us that these were personal 
acts of Mulhall, and we do not believe that he let McDermott have this money with a 
view of corrupting him. 





CHAKGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 11 

Neither does your committee believe that McDermott received from Miilhall in 
the way of loans or otherwise anything near the amount of $1,500 to $2,000, as alleged 
in the newspaper article. When examined upon this matter Mulhall was unable to 
give amounts or dates even approximately. We feel asssured that this has been exag¬ 
gerated.^ We think the most reasonable theory is that when they would be together 
in a social way in caf68 and other places and McDermott would be in need of money 
he would borrow small amounts from Mulhall. ]\Ir. Mulhall admits in his testimony 
that such transactions were purely personal, that he never reported them to his organ¬ 
ization, and that they were not charged to it, but treated as purely personal matters. 

That Mr, McDermott may have borrowed some moneys from McMichael at times 
which the latter received from the N. A. ^M. we think not improbable, but we do not 
believe there was any understanding that he was to regularly receive a portion or 
that there was any corrupt motive in the act. Probably it was an act of impropriety 
for Mr. McDermott to solicit and accept loans from McMichael from this salary, knowing 
its source. 

The fact of the use of a room in the Capitol by Mr. Mulhall has been referred to* 
heretofore. In the article he claims that this was procured for him by Mr. McDermott. 
We think this is true, or, at least, if he did not procure it for him, he did, having 
control over it, knowingly permit him to use it. The facts relative to this room, 
concerning wMch so much has been said, are that during the Sixty-second Congress 
two small adjoining rooms in the basement of the Capitol, Nos. 27 and 29, respectively, 
were allotted to the Committee on Expenditures in the Department of Commerce and 
Labor, of which Mr. Rothermel, of Pennsylvania, was chairman, and Mr. McDermott 
was ranking member. They were not used for committee purposes, however, but were 
turned into storage rooms by the chairman, who seldom visited them and who gave 
Mr. McDermott the right to use them also, and Mr, McDermott in turn gave to 
McMichael a key or, with his knowledge and consent, McMichael had a key made 
and used the room freely; and eventually, at the suggestion of either Mr. McDermott 
or Mr. McMichael (and we do not deem it material which, for we do not doubt the 
former had knowledge of the fact and acquiesced willingly), Mulhall was furnished 
a key and given the use of the room and did use it for a few hours each day, having a 
stenographer come there and take the dictation of his correspondence relative to his 
association work. His use of the room was limited to a few weeks during the summer. 

In testifying Mr. Mulhall alleged that the information received by him on June 3, 
1910, from McMichael, as to the proposed offering of an 8-hour amendment to the 
sundry civil bill, was furnished by McDermott to McMichael, and the intimation is 
that it was so given in order that he (Mulhall) might have opportunity to become 
active against it. McMichael verifies the statement that Mr. McDermott gave him 
the information, but (although he expresses his opinion) he is cognizant of no fact 
that would legitimately lead to the conclusion that it was done for the purpose inti¬ 
mated by Mulhall, nor do we believe it was. 

We think the probabilities are that Mr. McDermott, who is a member of a labor 
union and has supported the bills and amendments known as “labor measures,” had 
information that such an amendment would be offered and that he told McMichael 
in order that the latter might call him to the Chamber to vote should he chance to be 
out at the time it was offered. It is in evidence that he did this at times, and we think 
this the probable fact as to this incident. 

As for the use of McDermott’s frank, we do not find from the evidence that he 
authorized its use to an extent, or that it was used by or for Mulhall to an extent, that 
might properly be classed as abuse thereof. Some books and documents were mailed 
under it to officials of the association by Mulhall, but it is not in evidence that its use 
was so delegated by him as to be a violation of the law relative to the franking privilege. 

Mr. Mulhall is evidently in error as to the time of his first meeting with Mr. McDer¬ 
mott. He states in the article that he first interviewed him when he came to Wash¬ 
ington in 1907. The Mulhall correspondence and his later testirnony, however, indi¬ 
cate conclusively that his first interview must have been at the time of his tariff-com¬ 
mission canvass among Members in the early part of 1909. It was upon this occasion, 
he swears, that Mr. IMcDermott used the language which is the occasion of his com¬ 
ment in the article, where he says “he used language at this interview which I thought 
Avas not possible for a man filling the high position he filled to dream of using to any 
stranger who called upon him.” 

However shocking this language may have been to the sensibilities of Mr. Mulhall, 
your committee has not deemed forms of expression a matter demanding investiga¬ 
tion under the resolution. ... 

A very great deal was said in the article concerning Mr. Mulhall’s activity in behalf 
of Mr. McDermott in his campaign for renomination in 1912. Inasmuch as Mulhall 
Avas not then connected Avith the N. A. M., and there is no allegation that it took any 


12 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


part in the contest or had any interest therein, this, perhaps, does not come within 
the resolution, but so much has been said and testified concerning it that your com¬ 
mittee feels it should, in justice to all, give a brief report of the facts as disclosed by the 
record in this regard. 

Mr. Mulhall did, at the instance and request of !Mr. McDermott, go to Chicago in the 
spring of 1912 to aid him in his contest for renomination, his principal purpose in going 
being to raise funds for his campaign. McMichael advanced the money, $75, to pay 
MulhaU’s expenses, and there is some reason to believe that something had been said 
and possibly a tacit agreement was in effect that Mulhall was to receive for his services 
a portion of the funds he should collect, and was to repay IVIcMichael out of the amount. 
He arrived at Chicago and registered at the Sherman Hotel on March 28. From the 
testimony taken, and particularly that of Mr. George Fleming, a brother-in-law of Mr. 
McDermott, we are of the opinion that perhaps Mr. Mulhall’s activities in the matter of 
collecting campaign funds were not of very great aid to Mr. McDermott. Air. McDer¬ 
mott himself accompanied him to call upon some of the parties from whom funds were 
solicited, and Mr. Fleming accompanied him to see the others. About $500 were 
collected. The names of the contributors and the amounts were reported in Mr. 
AIcDermott’s sworn statement of expenses filed with the Clerk of the House. Mr. 
Mulhall expressed the opinion before the committee that they collected more, but 
v/as unable to state facts or names with sufficient definiteness as to justify us in so 
finding. 

The event of this campaign which is most strongly stressed by Air. Alulhall to cast 
discredit upon Air. AIcDermott is the contribution made by Air. Harold AIcCormick, 
or rather the developments in regard thereto. 

He alleges that Air. AIcCormick promised a contribution when they called on the 
afternoon of Alarcli 28, the day of his arrival in Chicago, and stated that he would 
send check payable to Alulhall to the Hotel Sherman; that the check did not arrive, 
and that he was })ressed for money to meet his expenses; that somewhere about April 
5 to 8 he determined to leave Chicago, and settled his hotel bill and gave an order to 
forward his mail to Baltimore; that subsequently during the day he was persuaded 
to remain by the insistence of Air. Fleming and reregistered and was assigned to 
another room in the hotel; that he then remained until about the 18th of April; that 
he had to pawn his watch charm to obtain funds to settle his hotel bill and pay his 
fare home; that upon his arrival he found AIcCormick’s check and cashed it; that he 
subsequently learned that a duplicate check had been delivered to Air. AIcDermott 
and cashed by him, and charged that the indorcement of his name on same by Air. 
AIcDermott was unauthorized and constituted a forgery. 

We find the facts to be as follows; Air. AIcCormick did promise a $250 contribu¬ 
tion, and on April 1, 1912, issued or caused to be issued a check. No. 19991, for this 
amount payable to Air. Alulhall, and it was presumably mailed to him at the Sher¬ 
man Hotel. Nothing was heard of the matter further by Air. AIcDermott or Air. Flem¬ 
ing, although they made inquiry in regard to it of Air. Alidhall at different times, 
and he stated he had not received it. Air. Alulhall did leave the Hotel Sherman 
some time before 9 o’clock p. m. April 8 and was not again at that hotel during that 
month. The records of the hotel placed in evidence are conclusive upon that point. 
On A])ril 12, 1912, there was deposited with the National Exchange Bank of Balti¬ 
more, Aid., by Hoch^child, Kohn & Co. and on the same date transmitted by the 
bank to its ( hicago correspondent bank this check for said sum, the firm of Hoch- 
schild, Kohn & ('o. having cashed it for AI. AI. Alulhall. It passed through the Chi¬ 
cago clearing house and reached the bank upon which it was drawn, the Alerchants 
Loan & Trust Co., where it was paid on April 15. 

It is perfectly e^udent that Air. Alulhall is mistaken as to the time he left C’hicago. 
He must have arrived at Baltimore, his home, prior to or by April 12. We think 
undoubtedly that he left on April 8. All records of forwarding addresses made by 
the hotel at that time ha\'e been destroyed, but from the testimony of the auditor, 
Air. Schopen, before your committee (p. 1654) it is perfectly clear that at no time 
before April 8 did Air. Alulhall surrender his room and reregister. He occupied 
the same room, No. 622, from Alarch 28 to April 8, and no other room after that dale. 
He does not claim to have changed hotels, but states that he was at the Sherman 
during his entire stay. 

In the meantime, on April 8, Air. AIcDermott, having heard notliing of the check, 
called pei’sonally upon AIcCormick and there was issued a duplicate which was 
delivered to him, indorsed by him, and used to pay his campaign expenses, same 
being reported in his official statement. At the time of issuing the duplicate the 
bank was notified not to pay the original, but by oversight it did pay it. Subse¬ 
quently, when the fact of the issuance of the two checks and their payment by the 
bank was called to his attention, he arranged with the cashier. Air. Estes, and repaid 
to him the $250, making the last payment about the last of June, 1913. 



CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 13 


In view of all the facts and circumstances yoiir committee does not feel that the 
coume of Mr. McDermott in this matter is subject to the slightest legitimate criticism. 
The duplicate (dieck, it is true, was payable toMulhall, as was the original, but it was 
for Mr. McDermott’s use and benefit that it was issued. We think he had the moral 
right to indorse the name of Mulhall to it. 

It should be stated, in passing, that the primary election in which Mr. McDeirnott 
was nominated was held on the 9th of April, a circumstance which strengthens the con¬ 
clusion that Mulhall left on the 8th. lie would have had no occasion to remain until 
the 18th. 

Your committee is of opinion that the most serious question of propriety affecting 
Mr. McDermott is not in connection with the N. A. M. or the other matters above 
related, but grows out of his acts and dealings with the Liquor Dealei-s’ Association of 
the llistrict of Golumbia and with George itorning, one of the pawnbrokers, to which 
allusion has been made. 

Beginning on page 490 of the record, I. II. MclMichael testifies at length and with 
great detail relative to Mr. McDermott’s relations with the pawnbrokers and in the 
course of this states flatly and unequivocally that McDermott (see p. 494) told liim 
that tlie pawnbrokers raised about |10,000 to be used in the effort to defeat tliis legis¬ 
lation, and that he, McDermott, got about $7,500 of tliis amount. He states that upon 
one occasion in 1911 he and Mr. McDermott went to New York and tliat in company 
with George D. Horning they had a conference with one John A. McDermott, who is 
a representative of the organized brewers of the United States, and has his head¬ 
quarters in that city, in which conference Representative McDermott evinced liis 
interest in the pawnbroker’s situation relative to tliis legislation. He states that upon 
this occasion Representative IMcDermott registered at the Hotel Navarre under the 
name of J. T. McDougal, and that they spent a day and night in the city of New York; 
he claims not to have known the purpose for wliich the trip was made to New York 
until after their arrival there, and liis testimony is to the effect that he then learned 
that its chief purpose was to try to aid Horning in securing influence to defeat the 
pawnbroker legislation. 

He further testifies as to procuring loans for McDermott from Horning and Heiden- 
heimer, and also to procuring loans for Idmself from these men and McDermott aiding 
him in settling them, or, rather, securing the return of his pledges without the pay¬ 
ment, in one instance, of the principal, and in another, the interest, and relates other 
circumstances to show the alleged close relations of Mr. McDermott with the pawn¬ 
brokers and liis influence with them. He states that during one of his campaigns 
Mr. McDermott called upon Horning for aid and that in McDermott’s ofhce he saw a 
telegram which had been sent the latter at Chicago by Horning and being undelivered 
was returned to McDermott’s Washington office stating that he was sending some 
monejL 5-00 or $2,000, the witness did not remember the amount. Representative 
McDermott denies that he received any money from any of the pawnbrokers for his 
activity in the legislative matters and denies that he took any particular interest 
in it or sought to aid them. He admits that on one or two occasions Horning or Heiden- 
heimer advanced liim money on the checks for liis clerk iiire and admits that he is 
indebted to Horning in the sum. of about $1,000 which he has borrowed from him in 
small sums from time to time during the past several years. He admits going to 
New York and registering as alleged and of seeing Horning in John McDermott’s 
office, and admits that Horning occupied an adjoining room at the same hotel, but 
denies that the visit to New York or to the office was due to any understanding with 
Horning or by any prearrangement or that he sought in any way to interest John 
McDermott in aid of the pawnbrokers. 

Mr. John McDermott, who is not related in any way to Representative McDermott, 
but who testifies that they are intimate personal friends, corroborates him in the 
statement that he never discussed this legislation with him at any time and never 
sought to interest him. He states that Horning, with whom he had had some dealings 
and whom he had met through the Representative, came to him to try and get him to 
attempt to set influence in motion that would interest “Tammany Congressmen” 
against the bill, that he declined to^ accede to the request in any way, and that the 
conversation was very brief. Horning states the same in substance. John McDer¬ 
mott states that when Horning first came to his office on that day, he asked him if he 
had seen Jim (meaning the Representative) recently, and Horning responded, “I 
think, maybe, he will be over to-day. I thought nothing more about it, and in a little 
while Jim and McMichael came in.” (See p. 1730.) 

Horning states that he became acquainted vdth Mr. McDermott shortly after his 
first entrance into Congress; that Mrs. Horning received a letter from relatives who 
lived in Chicago and who were friends of the Representative when he first came to 
Washington, suggesting that they call upon the family; that Mrs. Horning did so, and 


14 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


the families became acquainted and very friendly; that they exchanged visits; that 
upon one occasion Mr. McDermott, while his family was away, boarded or stayed at 
the Horning home for a few weeks. He denies that Mr. McDermott took any partic¬ 
ular interest in the pawnbrokers’ legislation or that he made any efforts to get him 
to do so. 

He admits that during the 1912 primary campaign of Mr. McDermott he let him 
have $200 to be used for the payment of campaign expenses, and claims that this 
was a loan, and states that at various other times since their acquaintance began he 
has loaned him money, some of which he has repaid, and swears that Mr. McDermott 
is now indebted to him in the sum of $1,085, being the aggregate of various loans, 
and includes the $200; that he has no security of any character for this amount; that 
it has been due, nearly all of it, for more than 18 months; and that he has no note 
or other evidence of the indebtedness. He denies that any part of this came out of 
the funds raised by him to be used in connection with the loan-shark and pawn¬ 
brokers ’ legislation, and states that it was a purely personal loan made to him because 
of personal friendship, and that after the total amounted to about $1,000 he declined 
to lend him any more. 

Mr. McDermott agrees with this statement of Horning practically in toto. 

McMichael was vigorously cross-examined by counsel for McDermott and admitted 
that he had made some false statements to different parties relative to some phases of 
the investigation and was sought to be impeached as to others, but he adhered rigidly 
to his assertion relative to the pawnbroker matter. 

Such is the substance of the testimony bearing upon this phase. 

In a previous part of this report we have set out the facts relative to the several 
organizations engaged in the business of dealing in intoxicating liquors and related 
businesses in the District of Columbia and have given the story of their activity 
relative to the so-called Jones-Works excise bill. It will be remembered that all these 
organizations are federated into a central body, which is supported by dues paid by 
its constituent associations, and that during the pendency of the Jones-Works bill a 
special assessment was levied to procure additional funds to be used in fighting tliis 
legislation. 

In September, 1912, at the instance and suggestion of Mr. Hugh F. Harvey, secretary 
of this central body, there was loaned to Representative McDermott out of its treasury 
the sum of $500. It does not clearly appear whether this $500 was out of funds raised 
by the regular payment of dues to the central organization or out of that raised by the 
special assessment referred to and paid into the central body’s treasury. His note due 
at 90 days and bearing 6 per cent interest was taken for this amount without security, 
and the same has never been paid. Mr. Harvey testified (p. 1186) that it was placed 
in a bank for collection and his impression is that one or two notices may have been 
sent to Mr. McDermott, but beyond this, if this really occurred, there have been no 
other efforts of any kind or character to collect this unsecirred paper due in December, 
1912. This was an unusual and extraordinary transaction. Mr. Harvey says: 

“It was entirely against my grain and against what I had thought should ever be 
done, but in this case he seemed desperate.” 

Mr. McDermott, testifying as to this, says that he was in sore financial straits; that 
he had lost a very considerable sum of money in a business venture—a venture relating 
to the manufacture of an airship; that his campaign for renomination had been a costly 
one; that he and his relatives had borrowed money for this; that his mother was 
security upon a note which was about due and that her home was in danger; that he 
could not borrow the money in Chicago; that he came to Washington to try and procure 
it from Horning, but failed; that he met Mr. Harvey on the street and told him his 
situation and th^at he negotiated the loan for him. He further states, “It had nothing 
to do with any legislation at all.” He swears that this transaction had no effect upon 
his position on the excise legislation; that his views upon the liquor question are well 
known and have been consistently the same; that he is a “wet” and was always 
opposed to the Jones-Works bill; that he never really read the bill; and that the loan 
had no possible connection with the pending legislation; that it was a bona fide loan, 
which he is obligated and intends to repay. 

Mr. Harvey testifies that it had no connection with the legislation; that he does 
not remember ever having discussed the Jones-Works bill or other liquor legislation 
with Mr. McDermott; that he understood his position on the liquor question was in 
accord with the wishes of the local organization all along, and in substance that the 
loan was not made with any purpose or thought of in any way influencing his attitude. 

Your committee is of the opinion that Mr. McDermott knew the source from which 
his fund came, and that he sought the loan knowing the facts. He knew Mr. Harvey 



CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 15 


and understood his relations to the liquor dealers’ organizations of the District. The 
committee can not escape the significance which attaches to the fact that no security 
was asked or given, and that no effort was ever made to collect the note, though long 
past due. 

We can not say that Mr. McDermott’s vote was influenced by this transaction. 
We have no doubt he would have voted against the Jones-Works bill had it not oc¬ 
curred, but we do not believe that the loan would have been made to him had he not 
been a Member of Congress, nor do we believe it would have been made had he been 
favorable to the Jones-Works bill. 

On page 1193 of the hearings Mr. Harvey testified as follows; 

“Mr. Russell. You did know, I believe I understood you to say, that he was 
friendly to the legislation that you people favored? 

“Mr. Harvey. Well, I had never had reason to think he was unfriendly. 

“Mr. Russell. Did you know, when the legislation was presented to the House, 
what his attitude was on it? 

“Mr. Harvey. I do not recall. 

“Mr. Russell. Well, would the fact that he was supposed to be friendly to the leg¬ 
islation have something to do with making this loan? 

“Mr. Harvey. I do not know. I suppose that he would consider it in that friendly 
spirit that a great many others would be; but as for his doing anything—if he has 
ever done anything to help us in any way —I do not know it and have never .discov¬ 
ered. I do not know whether he could or not. 

“Mr. Russell. You would not have loaned $500 to him if you had understood 
he was unfriendly to you, would you? 

“Mr. Harvey. That would not be a natural transaction; but I do not know what 
would have been done under the circumstances with a man as distressed as he appeared 
to be.” 

Your committee can go no further than ascertain and report to the House the facts 
as it finds them. The Members of the House know Mr. McDermott, know his ideals 
and his characteristics as the public generally does not and in the nature of things can 
not know them. His training and associations have not given him the ethical per¬ 
ceptions and standards relative to public office that usually characterize public men. 

We can not say that he has been con'upted in his votes, but some things which a 
private citizen may do "^ith impunity must be avoided by one in official station, and 
we should feel that we had shirked a duty which we owe to the House and the country 
did we not say that we are driven, much to our regret, to the conclusion that he has 
been guilty of acts of grave impropriety, unbecoming the dignity of the distinguished 
position he occupies. 

Finis J. Garrett, Chairman. 

Cyrus Cline. 

Joe J. Russell. 

Scott Ferris. 

William H. Stafford. 

Frank B. Willis. 

The facts set forth in the report of the select committee and the 
conclusions and findings of the select committee are abundantly 
sustained by the testimony. 

It is therefore pertinent to inquire what further action, if any, 
should be taken by the House in reference to the conduct of Uep- 
resentative James T. McDermott as disclosed in the hearings of the 
select committee ? 

Applying the principles of law herein enunciated, and observing the 
rules of sound policy, which we conclude ought to govern the House 
in dealing with a Member for improper conduct, we fail to find in the 
record that satisfactory character of evidence which in our judg¬ 
ment would warrant or justify the expulsion of Representative 
James T. McDermott. At the same time we do not exonerate him 
and can not and have no disposition to exculpate him from the impu¬ 
tations and consequences resulting from his own improper acts as dis¬ 
closed by the testimony embodied in-the hearings. 


IG CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

We therefore recommend the adoption of the following resolution 
by the House: 

Resolved, Tliat Re])re8entative James T. McDermott, while a Member of a forrner 
Coi'gress, in his associations with M. M. Mulhall, a lobbyist of the National Association 
of Manufacturers, and in accepting loans of large sums of money from George D. Horn¬ 
ing, a i)awnbroker, and from Hi;gh F. Harvey, a member of the Retail Liquor Dealers’ 
Association, both then vitally interested in legislation pending before such former 
Congress, was guilty of acts of impropriety incompatible with that high sense of honor 
and decorum which should characterize the .conduct of a Member of this House, and 
that the House strongly condemns such conduct of the said James T. McDermott, 
and declares that he was thereby guilty of acts of grave impropriety unbecoming the 
distinguished position he held. 

(4) The select committee appointed under House resolution 198 
investigated the lobby activities of the National Association of Manu¬ 
facturers, the National Council for Industrial Defense, the American 
Federation of Labor, District of Columbia organizations, the loan- 
shark associations, the pawnbrokers’ associations, and other associa¬ 
tions concerned in promoting or defeating legislation pending before 
Congress. The testimony covers a wide range and discloses many 
startling facts concerning the operations of some of the associations 
referred to. The select committee, in a very carefully prepared and 
exhaustive report, set forth the salient facts developed in the hear¬ 
ings, and have furnished in that report a systematic arrangement of 
the evidence bearing upon particular persons and subjects, and have 
made a careful analysis and synopsis of the testimony in the case. 
The Committee on the Judiciary, not having heard the witnesses, 
would be slow to override the conclusions of the select committee or 
to draw inferences from the testimony different from or in addition 
to those set out in the report and findings of the select committee. 
In reviemng the facts we therefore submit herewith, for the consid¬ 
eration of the tiouse and as a part of this report, the following extracts 
from the report of the select committee: 

AS TO THE WORLD AND TRIBUNE ARTICLES. 

For a proper understanding of this report, it must be borne in mind that the origi¬ 
nal publications appearing in the World and Tribune consisted of two distinct parts. 
One po.rt was what may be called a personal narrative. This was written by Martin 
M. Mulhall and appeared over his signature. The other was what may be called a 
summary. This was prepared by Louis Seibold, a member of the World staff, and 
Was based, according to his testimony, upon (1) the personal narrative of Mr. Mul¬ 
hall, (2) a mass of correspondence, purporting to be letters, copies of letters, tele¬ 
grams, notations, and various other written and printed documents accumulated and 
filed by said Mulhall during his period of service ac- an employee of the N. A. M. 
and subsequent thereto, and by him turned over to the World, and (3) personal 
statements made by Mulhall to Seibold during the time of the pre])aration of the 
summary. Because of the extreme length of the articles it is not deemed desirable 
to set them out in full, but all parts material to the report will be subsequently 
quoted or epitomized. 

THE N. A. M. 

The N. A. M. had its genesis in 1895, being then launched as a \oluntary organi¬ 
zation or association. It continued as such until 1905, in wdiich year it was incor¬ 
porated under the laws of the State of New York, its corporate name being “The 
National Association of Manufacturers of the United States.” 

It is stated in its charter that “the corporation is not organized for pecuniary 
profit and shall not make or declare dividends.” 

Its purposes, as set forth in the charter of incorporation, are as follows: 

“The general objects and purposes for which the said corporation is formed are 
the promotion of the industrial interests of the United States, the fostering of the 
domestic and foreign commerce of the United Stat.es, the betterment of the relations 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 17 


between employer and employee, the protection of the individual liberty and rights 
of employer and employee, the education of the public in the principles of individual 
liberty and ownership of property, the support of legislation in furtherance of those 
principles, and opposition to legislation in derogation thereof. 

“The particular objects and purposes of said corporation are to establish and 
maintain a mutual and cooperative organization of American manufacturers in the 
United States for the fostering of their trade, business, and financial interests, to 
reform abuses relative thereto, to secure freedom from unlawful and unjust exactions, 
to diffuse accurate and reliable information as to the standing of merchants and othef 
matters, to procure uniformity and certainty in the customs and usages pertaining 
to the trade, business, and financial interests of the members of said corporation, to 
settle differences between its members, to promote a more enlarged and friendly 
intercourse between the manufacturers of the United States, and to do all things 
necessary to carry out the aforesaid purposes for the mutual benefit and protection 
of its members under and subject to such regulations, conditions, and limitations as 
may be prescribed by the by-laws.” (See charter, p. 41, House hearings.) 

The committee understands from the testimony that its purposes prior to incorpo¬ 
ration were the same in substance as they have been since, but its activities have 
been gradually developed and now cover a much wider range than they did in the 
earlier days. 

J. P. Bird, general manager of the N. A. M., states these activities in part as follows^ 

“We publish two export magazines, we publish a domestic magazine, both known 
as American industries. We conduct a large foreign department in which are several 
subdepartments, a legal department wherein we advise our members on questions of 
corporation law and State law, a foreign collection department, and a domestic collec¬ 
tion department. ” (Testimony, Bird, p. 2036, House hearings.) 

Mr. Bird does not, however, cover in this statement all the efforts and ambitions of 
this association, and many others will be hereinafter pointed out. 

The correspondence between officials and employees of the association laid before 
your committee and placed in evidence shows it to have been an organization having 
purposes and aspirations along industrial, commercial, political, educational, legis¬ 
lative, and other lines, so vast and far-reaching as to excite at once admiration and 
fear—admiration for the genius which conceived them and fear for the ultimate effects 
which the successful accomplishment of all these ambitions might have in a Govern¬ 
ment such as ours. 

The publication work of the N. A. M. is carried on through another corporation of 
the State of New York, organized by substantially the same persons as those who 
organized the N. A. M. and in the same way, the latter corporation being styled “The 
American Manufacturers’ Co.” This was organized, as the committee understands, 
because of the inability of the N. A. M. to do that particular work desired, under the 
terms of its charter and the laws of the State of New York. In other words, the N. A. 
M. not being organized “ for pecuniary profit, ” caused, or its responsible agents caused, 
the American Manufacturers’ Co. to be chartered in order that through this entity its 
publication business and other purely business operations might be carried on. 

The membership of the N. A. M. at this time, as we understand from the testimony^ 
is, and has for several years been, approximately 4,000. The membership has varied 
from time to time, some dropping out and other new members joining. The mem¬ 
bership consists of individuals, firms, copartnerships, corporations, etc., who are’ 
engaged in manufacturing enterprises of nearly all kinds and characters. The mem-- 
bers are located in all parts of the United States. An annual fee of $50 is charged^ 
so that the association has from this source an annual income approximately of $200,000. 
It has a department for the solicitation of members which is now and has been since 
1909 in charge of Mr. F. F. Porter. This department has a force of seven men who 
solicit members throughout the country. As compensation for his services he receives 
70 per cent of the first annual fee paid by a member, and out of the funds received by 
him in this way he pays the expenses of his department. 

There is a board of directors consisting of 23 members (see testimony. Bird, p. 20367 
pt. 24), which meets four times a year, and an executive committee consisting of & 
members, which meets “during the interim of the board meetings or at the call of the^ 
president.” 

The present president is George E. Pope, of Hartford, Conn., who is not a salaried, 
officer; the general manager is J. P. Bird, who receives a salary as such of $7,500 per 
annum; the secretary is George S. Boudinot, who receives a salary of $4,500; and the 
treasurer is Alonzo B. See, whose salary is merely nominal, just sufficient to cover 
his bond. The principal office is located in the city of New York and there is an office 
force of about 60 people. 

H. Kept. 570, 63-2-2 


18 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


The association has numerous standing committees, as well as special and select 
committees, appointed from time to time to deal with the many subject matters 
which challenge its interest. It holds annual meetings or conventions, usually in the 
month of May, and in such city as may be selected, at which its business matters are 
attended to and at which there are discussions by its members and others of the 
various questions before it. The minutes of these annual proceedings are published 
and there have been filed with the committee and placed in evidence, but not pub¬ 
lished in the record because of their length, copies of the several reports of these annual 
conventions. 

THE N. c. I. D. 

The organization of the National Council for Industrial Defense was perfected in 
January, 1908, following a number of conferences held in the city of New York, the 
first of which was in August, 1907. It seems that as early as June, 1907, Mr. James W. 
Van Cleave, who was at that time president of the National Association of Manufac¬ 
turers, sent out a chcular letter addressed to various industrial organizations, probably 
confined to what were known as national organizations, as distinguished from State 
and local entities, inviting them to meet in New York and consider methods of co¬ 
operation. This letter of Mr. Van Cleave has been placed in evidence and will be 
found at page 2246 of the House hearings. It calls attention to the necessity of having 
some central committee through which the various industrial organizations might work 
upon those matters concerning which they were agreed, including “a carefully organ¬ 
ized legal department, which will do all the work of the council, advise local organiza¬ 
tions, assist interstate business organizations in the prosecution in every part of the 
country of labor organizations which violate interstate and antitrust acts, carry on 
prosecutions of every case of lawlessness dming strikes, the proper prosecution of 
attempted boycotts, or assault and intimidation, and a careful compilation and dis¬ 
tribution of all work handled by the legal department.” 

In addition to these things the suggestion lays special and particular emphasis upon 
the necessity of having some central organization in connection with legislative work. 
It says: 

“Congress will again be in session in a short time, and it is more essential than ever 
to give me most careful attention to Federal and State legislation.” 

The National Association of Manufacturers, through its president, having thus taken 
the initiative, various industrial organizations did meet in conference, as stated, in 
August, 1907, and after that time three other conferences were held before the final 
agreement, which produced the N. C. I. D., was reached. The final agreement, 
in brief, seems to have been that there should be created and organized an association 
known as the National Council for Industrial Defense. This council thus created 
consisted of three persons, a president, a secretary-treasurer, and a counsel. The 
purposes of this council are stated in resolutions adopted August 19, 1907, as follows: 

“ Said council shall have power— 

“1. To establish and maintain a legislative bureau. 

“2. To establish and maintain a legal bureau. 

“ 3. To establish and maintain a bureau of publicity and education.” 

Mr. John Kirby, jr., was selected president of the council and has served since that 
time. At the time of his selection he was a prominent member of the board of direc¬ 
tors of the National Association of jManufactiirers and was president of that organiza¬ 
tion from 1909 until 1913, and he is now a member of the board of directors and of 
the executive committee. Mr. Bird, the secretary-treasurer of-the N. (k 1. D., was 
at the time of his selection general manager of the N. A. M. and has continued in that 
position until the present time. ^ Mr. James A. Emery, the counsel for the N. C. I. D., 
had been previous to his selection as such connected with an organization known as 
the Citizens’ Industrial League in a relation somewhat similar to that he now bears 
to the N. C. I. D. Since the organization of this council there has never been a 
meeting of the members of the council. It has no by-laws and no constitution otto 
than that contained in the resolutions adopted at the time of its organization. There 
is no pro\dsion in any of its articles for a meeting of its members, and the only method 
by which a meeting could be had would be for the chairman to issue a call for the 
same, and, as testified by Mr. Emery, “there is no compelling direction that would 
force him to do so.” 

As secretary-treasurer of the N. C. I. I). Mr. Bird receives a salary of $3,000 per 
annum; Mr. Emery, as counsel, receives a salary of $12,000 per annum and an allow'- 
ance for expenses, the amount of which is not fixed. The president receives no 
salary. 

The membership of the N. C. I. D. consists not of ])erson8, but of associations. 
These number about 250. It is most largely, however, the creation of the N. A. M., 



CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 19 


and in the particnlar work performed by the N. C. 1. I), the two are practically one. 
M. Kirby defined the situation when, in answer to an inquirv during his examination 
by the committee, he said that the N. C. 1. D. is tlie mouthpiece of the N. A. M. 

Tliere is no fixed fee for membershi]) in the N. C. 1. D., and it is supported finan¬ 
cially by voluntary contrilnitions on the part of its members. Mr. F. F. Porter, 
who has general charge of the solicitation of members for tlie N. A. T^I., also i)erforms 
the same service for the N. (\ 1. I), and receives a commission of 38^ per cent of the 
amount collected from members of the latter organi/ation, paving the expense of his 
department out of this, as in the case of the N. A. M. 

From the testimony taken the committee is of the opinion that the N. C. I. D. was 
organized and has been kept in existence for two reasons: 

First. It enabled the centralization for particular work, especially political and 
legislative effort, in which a number of organizations and associations, the N. A. M. 
distinctlv, were interested. 

Second. Through the instrumentality of the N. C. I. D. the N. A. M. and other 
affiliating associations were enabled to more conveniently and expeditiously engage 
in political and legislative activities and make expenditures for purposes which would 
not have been permitted the N. A. M. by the terms of its charter under the laws of 
the State of New York. 

, NATIONAL TARIFF COMMISSION ASSOCIATION. 

Following the November election of 1908 there began a very active agitation for 
the creation of what is commonly termed a “Tariff Commission.” Among those 
strongly favoring this was Mr. J. W. Van Cleave, now deceased, who at that time 
was president of the N. A. M. Other officials and members of tlie association were 
likewise favorable, and very active efforts were begun to build up sentiment through¬ 
out the country and in the Congress in its behalf. Largely due to Mr. Van Cleave, a 
convention of those interested was called to assemble in Indianapolis, Ind., in Feb¬ 
ruary, 1909, for the purpose of discussing tliis question and promoting the views enter¬ 
tained. To Mr. M. M. Mulhall, who was then in the employ of the N. A. M., was 
assigned the work of sounding Members of Congress as to their views upon tliis sub¬ 
ject and extending verbal invitations to them to attend the Indianapolis meeting. 

At the Indianapolis convention a committee of one hundred was appointed and at 
the time, or shortly subsequent, there was organized the National Tariff Commis¬ 
sion Association as a voluntary organization. It is still in existence and has head¬ 
quarters in New York City. The N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D. became members, as 
did a large number of other organizations, persons, firms, corporations, and associa¬ 
tions. The purpose of the N. T. C. A. seems to have been to work for the establish¬ 
ment of a “nonpartisan semijudicial tariff commission—permanent in character.” 
The National Association of Manufacturers, or its responsible officials, unquestion¬ 
ably fathered the N. T. C. A., and, in so far as we can determine from the evidence 
adduced, it was the latter’s chief financial stay and supporter. 

THE workingmen’s PROTECTIVE ASSOCIATION. 

From time to time throughout the hearings had by your committee reference is 
made to an organization known as the Workingmen’s Protective Association. 

This organization was first formed, it appears, by Mr. Mulhall in the city and county 
of Baltimore, Md., during the political campaign of 1900, which was prior to the time 
that he became connected with the N. A. M. According to his testimony it was for 
political purposes, solely to aid the Republican organization in that campaign, and 
the expense incident to its organization and work were at that time paid by the Re¬ 
publican national committee. Subsequent to this, to wit, in 1903, after Mulhall had 
been employed by the N. A. M., at the suggestion of Marshall Cushing, then managing 
the political work of the N. A. M., the organization was revived and strengthened for 
the purpose of participating in a local campaign in Baltimore in opposition to the city 
ticket which was being supported by United States Senator McComas, of Maryland, 
who was being generally antagonized by the N. A. M. on account of his position upon 
what are generally known as “labor questions”—that is, certain legislation in which 
labor unions were taking an active interest. The expenses at this time were paid 
by Mr. Cushing, acting for N. A. M. . . . . 

At different times after this, Mr. Mulhall, acting for the N. A. M., organized this 
body under the same name in different sections of the country for political purposes. 
The organization was never more than local in character and its existence was tem¬ 
porary, it appearing as political exigency seemed to require and disappearing after 


20 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


the particular function desired had been performed. It seems to have been com¬ 
posed of members of organized labor, apparently those who did not sympathize in all 
respects with the political policies and purposes of the labor unions generally. It 
was by the organization of this body and through it that Mr. Mulhall performed a 
large part of the political “field work” delegated to him by the N. A. ]\I. 

THE AMERICAN FEDERATION OF LABOR. 

In the course of its investigation, under the resolution, your committee inquired 
into the political and legislative activities of the American Federation of Labor, 
examining at length its president, Mr. Samuel Gompers, and its secretary, Mr. Frank 
Morrison. 

The American Federation of Labor (hereinafter referred to as the A. F. L.) is com¬ 
posed of about 118 national unions of trades and industries, including organizations in 
the Dominion of Canada and in the American possessions. It was organized at Pitts¬ 
burgh, Pa., in November, 1881, following a preliminary meeting held at Terre Haute, 
Ind., about the middle of that year, at which a call was issued for the Pittsburgh con¬ 
vocation. It has grown steadily from a small beginning until there are now in the 
various organizations composing it approximately 2,050,000 individual members. 
The purposes of the federation, as stated by its president, Samuel Gompers, in his 
sworn testimony before your committee, are and have been as follows: 

‘ ‘To relieve the workers—the working people—from burdensome long hours of toil; 
to protect them in their work, their lives, their health; to improve their material and 
social and moral and political standing; to bring about a better condition for the 
toilers of our country as the result, and as a reward for the services they render to 
society. ” 

The funds received and expended by the A. F. L. amount now to more than $200,000 
per annum. Tliis is paid by the individual members of the various organizations com¬ 
posing the federation, the assessment being now about 9 cents per individual per an¬ 
num. It should be noted just here tjiat the moneys wliich have been expended by the 
federation in political activities—that is, in such efforts as it has made in elections, 
wlrich will be hereinafter more specifically set forth—have not come from those funds 
above referred to, but have been received by voluntary contributions from various 
members. Complete reports of all funds received and expended for all purposes have 
been published in the official organ of the federation and have been placed in evidence 
before the committee. 

At page 2423 of the committee hearings will be found a statement of the receipts and 
expenditures from 1881 to 1912, inclusive. The receipts during that time aggregate 
$2,638,042.41, the expenses $2,518,568.48, leaving a balance on hand September 30, 
1912, of $119,473.93. This was the general fund collected in the way of dues from the 
membersliip. 

The association publishes a magazine known as the American Federationist and also 
publishes a weekly news-letter, giving a resum4 of all matters of particular interest 
to the federation. These are widely circulated and are public publications. In addi¬ 
tion, it publishes many pamphlets and circulars covering a variety of themes of in¬ 
terest to its members and to the public generally. 

The president of the association is Samuel Gompers, who has served in tliis capacity 
for a long period of time; he receives a salary of $5,000 per annum. The secretary is 
Frank Morrison, who receives a salary of $4,000 per annum. The organization has an 
executive committee, headed by its president, to which is committed general manage¬ 
ment of the federation’s affairs. It has also a legislative committee charged with the 
duty of looking after legislative matters in which it is interested. Its headquarters 
are located in the city of Wasliington, where it has a very considerable office force. 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ORGANIZATIONS. 

The development of the investigation led your committee into an inquiry con¬ 
cerning the activities of certain organizations and persons interested in legislation 
affecting the District of Columbia solely, and herein we first note the local associa¬ 
tions of dealers in intoxicating liquors. 

There are in the District of Columbia a number of organizations composed of those 
engaged in the different branches of liquor and beer manufacturing and dealing, 
and related businesses. These several organizations are as follows: First, bottlers; 
second, brewers; third, jobbers; fourth, salesmen; fifth, wholesale dealers; and sixth,' 
retail dealers. Each of these organizations is made up of individuals engaged in the 
particular business indicated by the name of the association. These individuals pay 
into their re^ective organizations certain monthly or annual dues. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 21 


^ The associations above named are federated into a central body, and they as asso¬ 
ciations maintain and finance it. A Mr. Muhleisen is president of the central organ¬ 
ization, Mr. Hugh F. Harvey is secretary, and a Mr. Jacobson is the treasurer. 

After the introduction in the Sixty-second Congress of what is commonly referred 
to as the Jones-M orks bill these several associations took a very considerable interest 
in that proposed legislation. An attorney was employed, who appeared before the 
Senate Committee on the District of Columbia to argue as to the merits, and numerous 
other persons appeared voluntarily and without compensation. There were also 
other activities, such as the distribution of briefs and arguments. Also, this District 
organization communicated with men in the liquor business in all parts of the country 
to try to get them to interest the Tlepresentatives in Congress from their districts. 
Mr. Harvey testifies upon this point: 

‘ ‘All we asked them to do, of course, was this moral influence they could bring to 
bear through communication with their Representatives, pointing out to them from 
our viewpoint the effects of this legislation. ” 

There was also a certain degree of interest felt by the organization in what is com¬ 
monly known as the Webb bill, affecting interstate liquor shipments, but this interest 
seems to have been very small, and there are no evidences presented of any real activity 
on the part of these local organizations upon this latter measure. The amount of 
funds raised by these several organizations does not clearly appear from the testimony 
adduced before your committee. The principal witness heard was Mr. Hugh F. 
Harvey, a retail liquor dealer of the city, who was formerly a president of the Feder¬ 
ation of Liquor Dealers of the District of Columbia, which is the retail liquor dealers’ 
association, and who is now a member of its executive board. According to his testi- 
rnony this particular federation has a membership which ranges from 200 to 300 indi¬ 
viduals. These pay dues of $2.50 a month, that is, $30 per year, which makes its 
income from $6,000 to $9,000 per annum. The secretary and treasurer are salaried 
officers, but the amount of their salaries does not clearly appear. The organization 
has existed for a long number of years and has a number of interests other than in 
questions of legislation. However, it clearly appears that during the pendency of 
the bill referred to a very considerable fund was raised in addition to the amount 
received by annual dues, the retail dealers’ organization alone being assessed $10 per 
capita. This additional fund so raised was utilized largely in paying the expenses 
of the attorney for appearing before the Senate committee and for the printing and 
distribution of the briefs and arguments referred to. 

THE “loan-sharks” AND THE PAWNBROKERS. 

During several past Congresses there have been introduced various bills commonly 
knovm as “loan-shark” bills designed to prevent the charging of exorbitant rates of 
interest by pers )ns lending money and taking chattel mortgages as security, and certain 
classes of note discounters. In 1911, about the beginning of the extraordinary session 
of the Sixty-second Congress, such a bill was presented by Representative Dyer of 
Missouri, and was referred to the House Committee on the District of Columbia. 
After being fcr several weeks considered by that committee it was amended so as to 
include withm its provisions that class of money lenders known as pawnbrokers, and 
as amended was favorably reported to the House and passed. Subsequently the bill 
passed the Senate with certain amendments, one of which was a striking out of the 
provision including the pawnbrokers. Being sent to a conference committee of the 
House and Senate, it was there considered and finally agreed upon, the pawnbroker 
provision being restored, and near the close of the last session of the Sixty-second 
Congress, in February, 1913, was passed, signed by the President, and became a law. 

It being suggested before your committee that funds had been raised and efforts 
made to improperly influence the defeat of this legislation, certain of the money 
lenders and pawnbrokers alleged to have been the most prominent in the matter were 
summoned to appear and their testimony was taken. 

The principal character in this activity was one George D. Horning, who was both 
a loan shark and a pawnbroker. Two other pawnbrokers examined were Isaac Heiden- 
heimer and Abraham Burnstine. All of these were reluctant and unwilling witnesses. 
It was with the greatest difficulty that they could be brought to relate the most simple 
facts, and their manner and appearance while testifying were such as to create a dis¬ 
tinctly unpleasant and unfavorable impression upon the committee. After a number 
of hours of difficult examination, however, your committee finally elicited the follow¬ 
ing information: 

Very shortly after the introduction of the Dyer bilL it being believed that it would 
receive serious attention in so far as it applied to those commonly classed as loan 
sharks, Mr. George D. Horning proceeded to endeavor to raise a fund for the purpose 


22 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


of defeating this legislation, if possible, and he did succeed in raising at least $8,000. 
Those contributing, in so far as Horning could remember the names, or was willing 
to give them, were: J. S. Masters, $750 to $800; A. Kase, $700 to $800; William Bishop, 
$1,000; a Mr. Watt, who is a citizen of Philadelphia and engaged in business there, 
but had interests in the loan business in Washington, $2,000; a Mr. Wall of Chicago, 
who was in the same situation as Mr. Watt, $2,000; and Mr. Horning himself gave 
from $1,200 to $1,500. 

Out of this fund there was ])aid to Mr. Henry E. Davis, an attorney of this city, the 
sum of $2,000, according to his testimony and that of Horning. It ap})oars to have been 
paid as a retainer to him to conduct the fight against this legislation, but, according 
to his own testimony, he rendered practically no service in this connection. It is 
claimed by Horning that he has paid about $500 out of this fund for attorneys’ fees 
since the passage of the bill to lawyers who are representing him in litigation over the 
matter, and he claims that he has from $5,000 to $5,500 of the sum so collected in a 
private box in his safe; that it has never been deposited in any bank, although his 
testimony discloses that he carried accounts in several banks, and that he has kept it 
in his private safe separate and apart from all other funds ever since its collection, 
and that he is now holding it in this way. He states that he proposes to fight the legis¬ 
lation and use this money for that purpose. On page 809 of the record he was asked: 

“The Chairman. I understand it (the $5,500) is in the box all right, but what are 
you holding it for? What do you intend to do with it? 

“Mr. Horning. Oh, I am going to fight this legislation. I am not going to stop. 
I am going to keep right along on it. I have got it for that purpose, and if I fail on 
this I am going to introduce another bill. I am not going to stop now until I know 
positively this bill is unconstitutional. I have always told you I felt I have not been 
treated fairly, and I am going to try to save my business if I can.” 

Horning claims that he keeps no books and that he has no written record whatever 
of this transaction. 

It should be borne in mind that the $8,000 above mentioned was collected from 
those engaged in the loan-shark business, and that at the time it was raised by Horning 
the loan sharks alone were involved in the proposed bill, the pawnbrokers being not 
then included. 

After the bill had been amended by the House so as to include the pawnbrokers, 
Mr. Horning seems to have begun work among those engaged in this business with 
a view of trying to raise $10,000 for the purpose of defeating this part of the legislation. 
He called on nearly all the pawnbrokers of the city^ but, according to the testimony 
adduced before your committee, only succeeded in getting two out of a possible 
nine or ten to join him in making contributions; these were Burnstine and Heiden- 
heimer. 

The evidence as to the amount raised by these three men to be used in connection 
with this legislation, and the manner in which it was expended, is by no means clear 
or satisfactory. There seemed a manifest desire to evade the inquiry in this regard, 
and it was with the greatest difficulty that your committee extracted sufficient testi¬ 
mony to obtain an intelligent impression. The evidence obtained shows, as best the 
committee'can determine, that the fund raised by the three men mentioned amounted 
to^ $3,734.36. Of this Horning and Heidenheimer paid 40 per cent each and Burn¬ 
stine paid 20 per cent. Horning seems to have had general charge of the expenditure 
of this fund. No books were kept, and payments among themselves were made some¬ 
times in cash and sometimes by check. 

The nearest approach to clearness as to how the fund was expended is in the testi¬ 
mony of Horning. At page 770 of the hearings he undertakes to state how it was dis¬ 
tributed. According to his statement there was paid to Mr. Henry E. Davis, an 
attorney of the city of Washington, the sum of $2,000 for services rendered in discussing 
or attempting to discuss this pawnbroker legislation with certain of the conferees and 
Avith Senators and Representatives and for appearing before the President to argue the 
alleged injustice of the bill. There was paid to the law firm of Tucker, Kenyon & 
McFarland, also of Washington, the sum of $350 for services in preparing a brief and 
for an opinion at some time rendered on the bill. To a man named William Hart there 
was paid $200 or $250, a Mr. Sullivan received $200, and a Mr. Schulteis $300. These 
latter three individuals seem to have been employed to discuss this legislation with 
Members of Congress and present the views of the pawnbrokers to such of said Members 
as they should see personally. From the testimony before your committee it does not 
appear whether these men actually did anything they were employed to do. 

The bills for printing briefs, letters, and other matter filed by Heidenheimer, and 
which he paid, aggregate $67.86, and Horning estimates that the total for printing and 
distribution approximated $100. The latter also swears that out of this fund so raised 
he contributed the sum of $500 to the Democratic national campaign committee, pay- 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES; 23 


iiig the same to John Costello, the national committeeman for the District of Columbia. 
There was filed with your committee and copied into the record, where it ai)pears at 
page 778, a receipt signed by the national chairman of the Democratic committee, 
executed to George D. Horning, for the sum of $825, as a contribution to the campaign 
fund. So far as the receipt shows this was a personal contribution of Horning, but he 
states that $500 of this amount was from the fund above referred to. Burnstine had no 
knowledge of this contribution being made at the time, and the testimony of both 
Horning and Heidenheimer is hazy and indefinite as to when the latter actually 
learned of it. Upon the whole, however, your committee is of the opinion that he 
knew of it at the time and sanctioned it, issuing his check on October 31, 1912, for his 
pro rata of $200 with full knowledge of the purpose for which it was to be used. There 
18 no evidence that those receiving the contribution had any intimation of its being 
other than a personal contribution of Horning. The natural presumption is that this 
contribution was made in the hope that it might in some way influence the legislation 
which was then pending. A fair construction of the evasive testimony of Heiden¬ 
heimer and of the declarations of Horning made the impression upon the committee 
that such was their hope, but there is no evidence of any promise being made them 
from any source whatsoever, and as a fact of history the bill very shortly thereafter 
passed and was written into law. 

Concerning the payment of $2,000 to Mr. Henry E. Davis, there was some con¬ 
troversy, and some doubt apparently exists. Heidenheimer seemed to ])elieve that 
his fee was $1,500. Mr. Davis himself testified before the committee tliat this sum 
of $2,000 was paid liim and that on Feliriiary 26, 1913, when the last payment was 
made he executed a receipt therefor. This paper was placed in evidence before 
the committee. He further testified that after being paid he returned $500 to Horn¬ 
ing with which to pay one Ryan for services alleged to have been performed by him 
in connection with tiie matter, similar, as your committee understands, to those of 
Hart, Sullivan, and Schulteis, He states that he did tliis volantarily, it being sug¬ 
gested to him by Horning that Heidenheimer and Burnstine were univilling to pay 
more, and that he (Horning) would have to pay Ryan’s entire fee. Horning had been 
for many years a client of Davis, and under the circumstances, he says, he felt inclined 
to, and did, pay the same himself. 

There was considerable question in the committee as to the fact of this alleged 
payment to Mr. Davis, but it does not appear to be material to the inquiry, since it 
can not in any way affect its findings upon those matters coming within the scope 
of the resolution, and hence no opinion is here expressed upon it. 

Having described the various organizations, associations, etc., concerning which 
investigation was made, the specific matters which the committee was directed to 
inquire into and report upon will be now discussed. It is proper to state that in the 
preparation and rendition of this report it has l^een determined to follow a ddferent 
order of statement than thgt laid down in the resolution. It will be observed that 
in the preamble of the resolution the only organization referred to is the National 
Association of Manufacturers, while in its body an inquiry is directed into the activi¬ 
ties of any and all organizations, persons, associations, etc., that the committee might 
learn to be Engaged in the efforts therein defined and described. By taking up the 
resolution in reverse order it seems possible to arrange a more logical and succinct 
report. Accordingly, the fourth paragraph vail be first considered. This directs 
the committee to inquire, first, whether the National Association of Manufacturers 
or any other organization, etc., does now maintain or has Imretofore maintained a 
lobby for tlie purpose ox inniiencing legislation by Congress. 


LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES OF TIIE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANU¬ 
FACTURERS AND OF THE NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR INDUSTRIAL 
DEFENSE. 

(5) Your committee will not undertake to discuss in this report the 
legislative activities and methods of all of the organizations and asso¬ 
ciations referred to further than to call your attention to the facts 
reported by the select committee and to their exhaustive review of 
the same, but we feel it a duty we owe to the House and to the country 
to call particular and special attention to the methods, practices, an 
insidious lobby activities of the National Association of Manu¬ 
facturers and the National Council for Industrial Defense. The 
National Association of Manufacturers is a corporation organized 


24 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


under the laws of the State of New York. The National Council for 
Industrial Defense is an association whose purposes are vaguely de- 
jined. These two associations are represented in part by the same 
persons and are acting in harmony and are operating apparently for 
a common purpose. The facts relative to these particular organiza¬ 
tions can not be better stated than as set out in the following extract 
from the report of the select committee: 

LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITIES AND METHODS OF THE N. A. M. AND THE N. C. I. D. 

There has heretofore been given a history of the organization and a general state¬ 
ment of the purposes of the N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D., and their unity of intention 
as to political and legislative matters has been set forth. 

As a rule the attitude of these organizations on legislative matters has been nega¬ 
tive—that is to say, they have opposed with all the vigor possible certain legislative 
propositions: 

(1) That limiting the right of workmen to contract as to the amount of time they 
fjliall labor. 

(2) Any limitation upon the power of courts of equity to issue the writ of injunc¬ 
tion. 

(3) The exclusion of organized labor from the provisions of the Sherman law. 

These three matters have engaged their most serious attention and have been the 

subjects of their most active opposition. All bills and amendments—and there have 
been too many to try to enumerate them here—seeking to accomplish either of these 
ends, or even looking in that direction, have been met at the threshold and have been 
fought with untiring persistency and unwavering earnestness. 

Other matters in which from time to time they have taken an interest have been 
workmen’s compensation legislation, industrial and vocational education, merchant- 
marine legislation, and the creation of a tariff commission, all of which one or both 
of the organizations have favored. They have also opposed all legislation looking 
toward the permitting of “unionization” of Government employees, and seem to 
have been adverse to the principle involved in bills proposing to restrict or prevent 
the transportation in interstate commerce of articles that are the product of child 
labor. The question of Federal incorporation has been also a subject matter of dis¬ 
cussion, but the record discloses no particular effort relative to either of the latter 
subjects. 

To a certain extent also the N. A. M. seems, through its employee, Mr. Mulhall, to 
have taken some interest, a few years ago, in behalf of what was known as antipilotage 
legislation. This interest appears, however, to have been rather tepid. Employers’ 
liability legislation has also received a very considerable degree of attention and 
elicited great interest at different periods on their part. 

The principal figures representing these organizations, who have been active in 
Washington concerning legislative matters, are Marshall Cushing, James A. Emery, 
and Martin M. Mulhall. 

CUSHING. 

Marshall Cusliing was secretary of the association for a period of several years, 
retiring in 1907. Because of the remoteness of the time of his service your committee 
has not made so searching inquiry of his activities and efforts as of the others. The 
testimony shows that he was secretive and reticent to an extreme degree, as to the 
character of his work, and it was evidently friction in the association caused by this 
that led to the severance of his connection with the organization, which occurred not 
long before the launching of the N. 0. I. D. 

EMEEY. 

r'janies A. Emery became counsel for the N. C. I. D. in tlie year 1908 and has served 
in that capacity since that time, having his headquarters in the city of Washington. 

The constituent members of this organization at the time of joining, sign a card— 
something in the nature of a power of attorney—authorizing the counsel to represent 
them in those legislative matters in which an interest is taken by them, and he has 
complete authority in the premises to act and speak for them before committees of 
Congress and other persons and authorities thought necessary to be communicated 
Avith. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 25 


The activities of Mr. Emery in his capacity as counsel have been many and varied, 
V\ hen bills are introduced he procures copies, makes abstracts of them, prepares briefs 
and arguments upon them, keeps the members of his organization advised as to the 
contents and status of such bills by means of bulletins, letters, pamphlets, etc., an- 
swers any special inquiries that may be directed or referred to him concerning such 
bills or in regard to existing law, seeks opportunities for making arguments before the 
conamittees having such bills in charge, and makes such arguments whenever oppor- 
tunity IS afforded. It also appears that by keeping constantly informed as to the 
status of bills in committees and upon the calendars he is able to and does advise the 
members of liis organization wheji and how to address Representatives and Senators 
by letter or telegram urging action or nonaction, as may be desired by such members. 

MULHALL. 

Martin :M. Mulhall entered the employ of the N. A. M. about the 1st of January, 1903, 
and continued in its .service until the close of the year 1911—a period of 10 years. 

In September, 1911, he was suspended by the general manager, Mr. Bird, and sub¬ 
sequently was removed by the board of directors or resigned, his retirement to take 
effect at the close of the year. 

Following his retirement he offered, in the latter part of 1911, to turn over bis letters 
and correspondence to the American Federation of I.abor and also sought to bring 
them to the attention of Congress through the then chairman of the Committee on 
Labor, Mr. William B. Wilson. These offers were not accepted, and in 1913 he en¬ 
deavored to bring the matter to the attention of William Randolph Ilearst, owner and 
publisher of various newspapers and magazijies. It does not appear that he sought 
any compensation in connection with these offers. 

After these negotiations had failed, the correspondence was finally brought to the 
attention of the New York World, and arrangements were made whereby, for the sum 
of $10,000, the correspondence was turned over to that journal, and"^ the personal 
nan-ative which appeared in the World and the Chicago Tribune on June 29, 1913, was 
written. 

Since the appearance of this article and its companion piece, the summary pre¬ 
pared by Mr. Siebold, l\Ir. Mulhall has been variously and vigorously assailed. " 

Your committee has not felt called upon to enter upon either his personal condem¬ 
nation or his personal defense. It has concerned itself wholly with an inquiry to 
ascertain the facts called for by the resolution committed to its charge. The fullest 
and freest o})portunity was given to those interested to cross-examine Mr. Mulhall 
upon any and all parts of his personal narrative appearing in the journals referred to 
and upon the matters contained in his correspondence, the members of the committee 
themselves first asking such questions as they deemed proper under the resolution. 
He was given a very rigid cross-examination by Mr. James S. Easl)y-Smith, counsel 
for Representative James T. McDermott, and by Mr. Robert H. McCarter, who 
appeared as attorney for the N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D. 

In his examination Mr. Mulhall admitted that he had l)een in error in sundry state¬ 
ments appearing in his personal narrative as published in the World and Tribune 
and as to matters contained or asserted in his correspondence. Some of these matters 
were vital and important; others were wholly immaterial. 

Upon many other matters of great importance Mr. Mulhall has been abundantly 
corroborated by the testimony of officials of the N. A. M. and N. C. I. D. and other 
witnesses and evidence brought before the committee, while also many of his state¬ 
ments and much of his testimony has been sharply and flatly contradicted. 

It is of vital necessity that the proper perspective be obtained and maintained. 
What Mr. Mulhall actually did in the matter of reaching and influencing Members 
of Congress is important as relating to their integrity and hence the integrity and 
purity of representative government. Of almost equal importance, in another aspect, 
is what the organizations employing him thought he was doing. 

These organizations are strong and powerful; their ramifications are multifarious; 
the reach of their influence is indeterminable. When we trace the membership 
back to the actual indi\ddual persons who compose it, we find them earnest, honest, 
representative citizens engaged in the great and masterful work of the world, seeking 
with patriotism and honesty to do the work of real men in the affairs of life. The 
great mass of individual members, doubtless, have not known the details, perhaps 
few of them have had even general information as to the particular things Mulhall 
was doing or was thought to be doing. They delegated details to their chosen offi¬ 
cials. Without knowledge they could not be held morally responsible for his acts. 
Nevertheless, because of the potency and magnitude of these associations, the ideals 
and mental attitude of those charged with the conduct of their affairs becomes highly 


26 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


important. What was their attitude toward the Congress? What was their estimate 
of its intelligence and of its virtue? 

That Mr. Mulhall was extravagant in many of his claims, that he purposely, oi 
through self-deception overestimated, and consequently in his reports overstated, his 
potency and influence with Members of Congress and public n.en generally, your 
committee thinks admits of no question; that he entertained an animus toward many 
of those against whom he made allegations is indisputable; that he used the names 
of some public men in connections and with a freedom not justified by any fact devel¬ 
oped or existing is undeniably true. Nevertheless, however gratifying this may be 
to those citizens who like to have faith in public men, it does not, if his acts, actual 
and alleged, were improper, exculpate the responsible authorities of those associa¬ 
tions who employed him. They believed he was doing the things he re})orted hini- 
self to be doing and employed him because they did believe it. Their mental atti¬ 
tude is thus most forcibly disclosed. Mr. Mulhall, as we have stated, served the 
N. A. M. through a period of approximately 10 years, under differerit regimes and 
different officials, lie made elaborate reports, many of them in duplicate and trip¬ 
licate. He received a salary and an allowance for expenses, both of which were 
paid during all these years without question, e.xcept in perhaps one minor instance 
as to a small typewriting account, so far as the record discloses. That there was some 
friction at times because of his temper appears, but this was always smoothed over 
until the timie of his suspension in 1911, and upon the whole he undoubtedly enjoyed 
the confidence, esteem, and appreciation of the officials who were his superiors, and 
his acts, with few exceptions, met their approval and received their commendations. 

One exception which it seems proper to note at this juncture is the use by him of a 
room in the Capitol. In the Mulhall narrative appearing in the press, and in the 
comments concerning it, much stress was laid upon this fact. Hereinafter this will 
be more fully discussed. For the present it is sufficient to say that the use of this 
room by him was explicitly disapproved by that official of the N. A. M., Mr. Bird, 
under whose direction he was working, and positive instructions were given him not 
to use it. His subsequent use of the room was in violation of these instrm.'tions and 
seems to have been without the knowledge of Mr. Bird, Mr. Emervg or other of the 
officials of either organization. This protest was not against what he was to do in 
the room, but was simply against its use by him, it evidently being feared that such 
action would meet merited public suspicion and criticism. 

Under all the circumstances and conditions it seems fair and just to say that the 
N. A. M. and the N. C. D. I. by now assailing and denouncing Mulhall and by prov¬ 
ing or attempting to prove that he did not do many of the things which at the time he 
reported he was doing can not escape whatever criticism and condemnation may 
be deserved for his alleged acts as their agent, because, whether he did or did not 
do the things which he reported to them he was doing, they thought he was reporting 
the truth and, with few minor exceptions, approved his course unreservedly. 

The exact duties that Mr. Mulhall was supposed and expected to perform your 
committee confesses proved difficult of ascertainment. 

As has been stated, he was first employed by Marshall Cushing about the beginning 
of 1903. During the Cushing regime he was known as No. 11 and not by name. Just 
why this plan was adopted does not appear, except that it was in line with the policy 
of secretiveness practiced by that individual while acting for the N. A. M. After 
the election of Mr. J. W. Van Cleave as president and the retirement of Cushing as 
secretary this numbering practice was abolished. Mulhall was continued in the 
employ, however, charged with the same duties and performing the same functions 
as theretofore. In fact, his duties were at all times the same, as have been the pur¬ 
poses and policies of the N. A. M. His work is commonly referred to by himself 
and the officials of the organization as that of a “field agent.” Your committee 
was somewhat puzzled to know just what this meant and confesses now that the 
subject has not been wholly illumined. It clearly appears, however, that among 
other things he did or was expected to do in his capacity as “field agent”—and this 
is to be distinguished from his activity in the city of Washington—was political 
work in different States and congressional districts. This will be hereinafter more 
especially referred to. Also, he was sent at times into sections where strikes were in 
progress, evidently for the purpose of trying to break them. Your committee has not 
felt called upon or authorized under the resolution to investigate his efforts in this 
respect. 

He appears also to have solicited members for the association to some extent but 
this seems to have been a minor and merely incidental part of his business. 

President J. W. Van Cleave unquestionably entertained a high regard for his abilities, 
was responsible for his salary being increased, and evidently held him in esteem, and 
between him and Ferdinand S. Scnwedtman, secretary to Van Cleave, who carried on 


CPIARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 27 


the greater portion of the latter’s correspondence as president, there seems to have 
existed a deep and mutual friendship and admiration. He was constantly compli¬ 
mented and encouraged by Mr. Schwedtman, who assured him also of his chief’s 
appreciation. 

Some time after the formation of the N. C. I. D. Mulhall was “loaned” to the latter 
by the N. A. M., instructed to come to Washington, and was placed while here under 
the direction and control of Mr. Emery. Vliile away from Washington, engaged in 
field work, he was to be under the direction of Mr. Bird. The services which he 
rendered the N. C. I. D. were considered by the N. A. M. as its contribution to the 
former organization. 

There is an unsatisfactory indefiniteness also about the functions he was to perform 
in Washington. He was at this time receiving a salary of from $250 to $300 per month 
and a not illiberal allowance for expenses. The latter was not a fixed amount. He 
sent in his expense accounts and they \i'ere paid without question, except in the 
instance cited. 

One of his duties seems to have been that of procuring bills, reports, etc., but the 
most of this work was, during much of the time at least, performed by I. H. McMichael, 
who was employed by Mulhall for that purpose with Mr. Emery’s consent, Mr. Emery 
paying him at least in part. 

He^ did not appear before any committees of Congress to make arguments upon 
pending measures, nor does it appear that he had anything to do with the preparation 
of the bulletins and pamphlets sent out by Mr. Emery. 

From the testimony adduced before your committee, the conclusion must be in¬ 
evitable that in so far as Mr. Mulhall’s duties in Washington and about the Capitol 
are concerned he was employed and used by these organizations very largely and 
primarily for personal lobbying. They believed him to be a man of extended ac¬ 
quaintance among Representatives, Senators, and other public men, and believed 
that this acquaintance could be capitalized and utilized in influencing individual 
Members in their official acts, and so affect the general course of legislation; and it was 
for this pur])ose that he was employed and retained. 

Having pointed out the legislation in which the organizations were interested, we 
turn now to the methods, and especially to Mulhall’s work, in this regard. 

In his personal narrative in the World and Tribune he asserted that he would obtain 
advance information as to legislation that was to be offered by way of amendment as 
riders upon bills; that upon one occasion he reported to Mr. John Dwight, the Repub¬ 
lican whip of the House, that a rider would be offered to the sundry civil bill two weeks 
before it was offered, and that Dwight kept in Washington as many Members of his 
side of the House as he possibly could, etc. He states that this rider was “a general 
eight-hour bill, which William Hughes of the sixth New Jersey district, put upon the 
sundry civil bill, and this rider was squarely defeated by a party vote of the House, 
the Republicans voting against it and the Democrats voting for it.” 

Concerning this statement there has been much testimony and a very considerable 
amount of confusion. We think the article was so worded as to make the impression 
that the obtaining of such information was a common practice and a matter of frequent 
occurrence.* The evidence does not substantiate this idea, but that upon one occa¬ 
sion, which was that referred to by Mr. Mulhall, he did obtain such information is 
clearly and unmistakably proven. It does not appear, however, that he obtained this 
information two weeks in advance of the amendment being offered, but apparently 
it was some two or three days, nor was the amendment offered by Mr. Hughes of New 
Jersey, but, as the record shows, it was by Mr. Kendall of Iowa. 

Mr. Mulhall is also mistaken as to it having been defeated by a party vote, “the 
Republicans voting for it and the Democrats voting against it.” As a matter of fact, 
a point of order was made to the amendment, and it was sustained by the chairman of 
the Committee of the Whole. An appeal from this ruling was taken, and the Chair 
was sustained upon a teller vote—yeas 99, nays GJ. There is no method of ascertaining 
whether this vote was along party lines, nor do we deem it material. It is very well 
known in the House and throughout the country that divisions upon these questions 
have not been unifonply along party lines. 

In a letter written to Mr. John Kirby, jr., of Dayton, Ohio, under date of June 4, 
1910, Mr. Mulhall makes a long report as to his activities. This letter has been placed 
in evidence before your committee. It appears from the context that upon June 3 
Mr. Mulhall wTnt to the Capitol and— 

“received a brief report from my labor friends and was handed the following written 
statement: 

“ ‘The sundry civil bill now before the House, page 116, at the end of bill, on page 

184_Mr. Hughes, of New^ Jersey, hasan amendment on the eight-hour law to be offered; 

every effort is being made to get your men in so that the amendment can be defeated. 


28 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


Notice lias been given all Republicans to be on hand to vote with the chairman, 
Tawney, against same going into the bill. I will look after the end of keeping the 
other side away.’” 

Mulhall testifies that this note was handed him by I. II. MclMichael, at that time 
a chief page in the House and in the employ of Mulhall for the N. A. M. 

McMichael testifies that he did about that time hand Mulhall a note, but he is quite 

g ositive in the belief that not all of the language above quoted was written thereon, 
[e believes he wrote only the following: 

“The sundry civil bill now before the House, page 116, at the end of the bill on 
page 184, Mr. Hughes of New Jersey has an amendment on the eight-hour law to 
be offered.” 

McMichael states that he met Mulhall in the corridor and was asked by him what 
was going on, and McMichael thereupon gave him this information; that Mulhall 
requested him to write it and he accordingly did so. 

The original of this note was not placed in evidence. Mdien Mr. Mulhall was before 
your committee he was questioned concerning it, and it was his impression that it 
had been filed before the Senate lobby investigating committee. We thereupon 
addressed a request to the Senate committee to be permitted to examine this, if the 
original had been filed, and in response thereto were advised that it had not been 
placed in evidence or presented to the committee. From all the evidence and the 
surrounding circumstances your committee thinks it probable that McMichael’s 
version is correct, and that the other portions of the note became mixed with the origi¬ 
nal McMichael matter in quoting the same. 

The letter of Mr. Mulhall continues, giving an account of his call upon the Republi¬ 
can whip of the House and informing him that such an amendment would be offered, 
and tells his (Mulhall’s) efforts to procure the attendance of Members adverse to the 
legislation when this matter should arise. 

It appears from an examination of the sundry civil bill, as it was reported to the 
House in the Sixty-first Congress, second session, that it did consist of 184 pages. It 
also appears from an examination of the Congressional Record (see pt. 7, vol. 45, 
61st Cong., 2d sess., p. 7327) that at the close of the session, on June 2, page 116 of 
the bill was under consideration. It will be remembered that Mr. Mulhall claims 
to have obtained this note on the morning of June 3 and prior to the meeting of the 
House. It further appears that the amendment of Mr. Kendall was proposed on page 
184 and before the last section of the bill—section 11. (Pt. 7, vol. 45, p. 7410.) 

This record evidence is necessarily strongly corroborative of certain of the details 
of Mr. Mulhall’s letter, and, in addition to this, the testimony of Mr. Emery is con¬ 
clusive upon that point. 

Under date of June 6, 1910, Mr. Emery, writing to Mr. Kirby, gave an account of 
the contest over the Kendall amendment, saying among other things: 

“In accordance with the warning received, an account of which was given you 
in my recent letter, an attempt was made by the Democrats to attach the 8-hour 
bill to the sundry civil bill on Saturday afternoon. The colonel’s authentic advance 
information enabled ample warning to be given to the Republican whip, and the 
prompt and efficient assistance which the colonel gave secured every precaution.” 
The “colonel” therein referred to was Mr. Mulhall. 

In a subsequent part of the letter it is further stated: 

“The colonel deserves the greatest credit in the manner of obtaining his informa¬ 
tion and the promptness and efficiency with which he applied it.” 

Another of the matters of legislation against which these organizations have made 
vigorous and determined warfare has been the exemption of labor unions from the 
operation of the Sherman antitrust law, and in connection with this same sundry civil 
bill in 1910 there was a contest over this in which Messrs. Emery and ^^lulhall took a 
most active part. 

On June 2, 1910, while the sundry civil appropriation bill was under consideration 
in the House (see Cong. Rec., vol. 45, pt. 7, 61st Cong., 2d sess., p. 7324), Representa¬ 
tive William Hughes, of New Jersey, offered an amendment designed to prevent the 
use of any portion of a special fund allotted the Department of Justice for the investiga¬ 
tion and prosecution of violations of the antitrust law being used for prosecuting 
members of labor unions under certain conditions. This amendm^ent was offered to 
be inserted at the end of line 24, page 116 of the bill. 

We think it strongly probable that Mulhall, in writing his personal narrative, con¬ 
fused the Kendall amendment, above referred to, with this Hughes amendment, and 
hence some of the inaccuracies that appeared in his statement. 

The Hughes amendment was adopted in the Committee of the Whole. No separate 
vote was had or demanded upon it at the time of the final passage of the bill'by the 
House on June 4, 1910. The Senate, however, amended the bill by striking out the 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 29 


House amendment, and this action became Senate amendment No. 76. When the 
bill as amended by the Senate was returned to the House all Senate amendments 
were disagreed to by unanimous consent and the bill was sent to conference. There 
were a number of conference reports, partial in character, made from time to time and 
acted upon. On June 21 (Rec., 61st Cong., 2d sess., vol. 45, pt. 8, p. 8656) Mr. Hughes 
moved that the House conferees be instructed to disagree to Senate amendment No. 
76. Upon this motion there was a call of the roll and the veas were 154; nays 105 • 
answered present, 12; not voting, 118. 

The next and final test came on June 23, 1910 (Rec., vol. 45, pt. 8, p. 8852, 61st 
Cong., 2d sess.), when Mr. Tawney moved that the House recede from its disagreement 
and concur in the Senate amendment striking the provision from the bill. This motion 
carried upon the roll call—yeas, 138; nays, 130; present, 16; and not voting, 105. 

There has been placed in the record of your committee, and proven, a letter of Mr. 
James A. Emery written to Mr. John Kirby, jr. (House hearings, p. 2118), in which 
there is given an account of the contest in the Ilouse, his own actions in regard thereto, 
and the work performed by Mulhall. Among other things he says: 

“In the meantime, after an hour’s conference with Mr. Dwight, the whip of the 
House, at his office, the program was outlined and carried out to the letter. To 
the colonel (Mulhall) was given a list of 14 names, some Democrats, some Republi¬ 
cans, who voted with Hughes. He accomplished his work so successfully that of the 

14 but one failed to either absent himself or vote with us yesterday.” 

In view of this statement, your committee has carefully examined the Record upon 
the two votes. This shows (see volume of Record referred to ante) that there were 

15 Members that are not recorded in the vote of June 21 who voted for the Hughes 
amendment on June 23; that there were 30 that voted for the amendment on June 21 
who are recorded as not voting on June 23; 6 that voted for it on June 21 who answered 
“present” on June 23, being paired; and 3 that voted for it on June 21 who voted to 
recede—that is, against it—on June 23. 

Most or all of those recorded as not voting on both days were paired, and as, of 
course, your committee has no way of determining who of them were absent from 
the city or engaged at the time in other official business, it has been deemed essential 
to recite the Record facts in view of the statement in Mr. Emery’s letter to as Mr. 
Mulhall’s efficiency in the contest. 

We have set forth the above instances with considerable detail, because they appear 
to be typical of the mental attitude and purposes of the N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D. 

Other methods pursued by them have been to appear, by representatives, before 
committees and make arguments, to address written and printed communications to 
Members of Congress, and one favorite plan has been, when it is known that an issue 
was shortly to come to a vote, to have members of the organizations in all parts of 
the country telegraph their immediate Representative or their Senator, as the case 
might be, urging him to vote in a certain manner. The thorough organization of these 
bodies enables their agents in Washington to speedily inform the membership in the 
various States of a pending matter and bring quick responses by way of telegraphic 
appeals to,Congressmen. 

The second clause of paragraph 4 of the resolution requires the committee to “ascer¬ 
tain and report to what extent and in what manner, if at all, legislation has been 
improperly effected or prevented by reason of the existence of such lobby if it be 
found to exist now or to have existed heretofore.” 

This necessitates the expression of the judgment of the committee as to what char¬ 
acter of efforts may properly be exercised by an individual or an association in the 
attempt to influence the action of Congress and its individual Members in legisla¬ 
tion. The committee realizes the extreme delicacy and difficulty of laying down 
such a rule and the practical impossibility of asserting one sufficiently specific to 
be generally satisfying. This is a matter of individual opinion and is a question which 
must largely be determined by the Member for himself. After all the searching 
and defining and speculating, we come back to the elemental proposition that the 
whole matter must depend ultimately upon the judgment, the intelligence, the 
honor, and above all, perhaps, the courage of the individual Congressman. 

No rule which this committee can lay down, even if it could be crystallized into 
law, will protect a fool from his folly or a weak man from his timidity, nor can it give 
courage to the cowardly or virtue to the depraved. The man who enters public life 
in a representative government assumes gi'ave responsibilities, and most largely 
upon his own judgment, his own firmness of will, and his own sense of honor must he 
rely in meeting the constant pressure from conflicting interests that are ever plead¬ 
ing and appealing, ever enticing and threatening him. 


30 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


Each appeal and each threat and each inducement offers its own problem to be 
solved, and each man must have a standard of his own. 

The elements which may annoy one may offer no obstacles to another. We see 
things from different angles, and, so seeing them, their appearances are different. 

Nevertheless, your committee believes that there is a general standard in the 
public conscience of this country which renders it possible and proper to lay down a 
general rule upon this matter, and this we venture to state, realizing that it is general 
and must be applied under the limitations and conditions which the exigency of 
each question that arises may present. 

Your committee is of the opinion that any individual or any association of indi¬ 
viduals interested in legislation pending in Congress has the unquestionable right to 
appear in person or through agents or attorneys before committees and present his or 
its views upon and arguments in behalf of or against such, legislation; that it is the 
right of the individual and the mass to appeal to the legislator personally, verbally, 
if he sees proper to grant an interview, cr in writing, if he sees proper to read it, and 
by education and argument seek to convince his judgment and his conscience. _ This 
we think is the true spirit of the right of petition guaranteed by the Constitution to 
the citizens of the Republic. To place the Congressman in a cloister to legislate, 
rendering him immune to extraneous influences, would be impossible, and, if possible, 
it would be exceedingly ridiculous. But your committee feels assured that when¬ 
ever any person or association attempts by secret or insidious means or methods, by 
either giving or encouraging the hope of other reward than that mental and spiritual 
exaltation which springs from the consciousness of having walked in the light of 
honest judgment and followed it to its logical end, or by threats of punishment to be 
vindictively inflicted, then such methods become a menace to the free exercise of 
the legislator’s judgment and the true performance of his solemn obligation and duty, 
are improper and merit the severest condemnation, 

’WTien we come to apply this rule to the activities of the N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D. 
in legislative matters we are at once confronted with the impossibility of divining 
the motives which actuated the attitude of the various Members of Congress. 

Accepting as true the statement that upon the final vote on the Hughes amendment 
Members were induced to change position by the acts of Mulhall and Emery and the 
influence of telegrams and letters, the question still remains as to what were those acts 
and what methods were used. In the very nature of things the committee could not 
ascertain these facts in detail or learn the motives of those who changed. As to the 
inducing of Members to remain away, which is also stated to have been done, the com¬ 
mittee has no hesitation in saying that this was highly improper. The JMembers so 
induced violated the rules of the House which require attendance and the casting 
of a vote unless excused by the House and, what is more important, violated the 
obligations due their constituencies and the public. 

This we say without reference to the merits of the legislation concerning which 
differences of opinion exist. 

To this extent, at least, the lobby of the associations was guilty, in the opinion of 
your committee, of improperly preventing and seeking to prevent this legislation. 

For the reason that it is impossible for your committee to know the motives of those 
who changed their position, it is impossible to say whether they were improperly 
influenced; but we feel constrained to say that there is a limit beyond winch men 
should not in decency go, even in argument, and we entertain the gravest doubt as 
to the propriety of the acts of Mulhall and Emery relative to this matter, and we hope 
that future Congresses may be trusted to legislate without the particular kind of aid 
rendered in the particular manner that those gentlemen then gave. 

We think it is offensive and outrageous that these associations should have their 
paid hirelings about this Capitol buttonholing Members of Congress, striving to induce 
them to remain away from the Chamber when a vote was being taken. We think 
they went beyond the limits of legitimate effort and that they deserve the severest 
censure as well as a pointed invitation and suggestion that they completely reform 
their methods or else remain away in the future. We have striven to make clear our 
opinion as to the right of persons and organizations to argue and appeal to Representa¬ 
tives and Senators. We would not place one of these upon an unapproachable pedestal 
and bid the world regard him wdth aw^e and in silence. That is not the true theory 
of representative government; but the Congressman himself is entitled, and what 
is vastly more important, the public w^hom he represents is entitled to have him act 
free from the annoyances and efforts such as clearly w^ere incident to these activities of 
Mulhall and Emery, whose conduct met the unreserved approval and enthusiastic 
acclamation of the officials of their respecti\ e organizations. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 31 


EFFORTS AS TO COMMITTEE ASSIGNMENTS. 

In the third paragraph of the resolution your committee was directed to inquire 
whether improper influence has been exerted by said association (the N. A. M.) or by 
any other association, corporation, or person to secure or prevent the appointment or 
selection of any Representative to any committee of the House in this or any other 
Congress. 

In the Mulhall article it was asserted that at the request of Mr. Emery and Mr. Mul- 
hall three active members of the House Judiciary Committee were removed through 
the influence of Hon. James E. Watson; that one of these was Mr. George A. Pearre, late 
a Representative from the State of Maryland, the names of the others not being given; 
that in the place of the three men removed “three very subservient members were 
appointed, Mr. Vreeland of New York, and Mr. Bannon, of Ohio, being two of these,” 
and the article adds: 

“So this committee was fixed from that time on to make it impossible to get any legis¬ 
lation through unless it was O. K.’d by the National Association of Manufacturers.” 

The Congress in which this is alleged to have taken place is not given, but from the 
surrounding circumstances it appears to have been the intention of Mulhall to assert 
that it was at the time the House Committees were appointed for the Sixty-first Con¬ 
gress. The Judiciary Committee for that Congress was appointed near the close of the 
extraordinary session in August, 1909. 

Mr. Mulhall, Mr. Emery, and Mr. Gardner each testified before the committee and 
were closely examined upon the statement. The substance of Mulhall’s testimony 
upon this point is that he and Emery discussed the matter, and that in the latter’s 
office certain persons were agreed upon to c-onstitute at least one and perhaps others 
of the subcommittees; that Mr. Emery wrote on a slip of paper the names of five men 
to be suggested for ap])ointment on subcommittee No. 2; that Mr. Mulhall communi¬ 
cated this to Mr. Gardner, and that they wore so appointed. 

There has been proven and placed in the record a copy of a telegram sent by Mul¬ 
hall to Emery, which roads as follows: 

Washington, D. C., February 11, 1910. 

James A. Emerv, 

National Association of Manufacturers, 

no Broadway, New York: 

Subcommittee No. 2 appointed as suggested and bill referred to that committee 
by Chairman Hughes, of New Jersey, making personal canvass of full committee to 
try to force bill out next Tuesday. 

M. M. Mulhall. 

(Charge James A. Emery.) 

Also there have been proven and placed in evidence letters written by Mulhall 
about the same time in which there are statements tending to corroborate his asser¬ 
tions in this regard. 

Mr. Emery and Mr. Gardner each make denial of the truth of these assertions. Mr. 
Emery undertakes to explain the telegram above quoted by saying that it evidently 
had reference to an effort whic-h he and others were making to obtain a hearing upon 
an “eight-hour” bill. This explanation is not satisfactory to your committee. Its 
wording, it seems to us, must naturally leave the impression of at least some conference 
or discussion relative to appointment of the subcommitcee, and does not appear to 
reasonably bear the construction of having reference to a hearing. That Mr. Gardner 
did, during his last term as chairman, become indifferent to the fate of “labor meas¬ 
ures” Avhich he had formerly cham])ioned and made practically no effort to press 
them we think can not be questioned in the face of his own statements in the record. 
Whatever his motives, the fact stands out prominently 

In view of the conflicting testimony, the interest of the witnesses and all the sur¬ 
rounding circumstances, the committee is left in the realm of doubt as to the verity 
of the allegations concerniug these subcommittee appointments. 

The two instances above cited are the only cases related in the Mulhall article. 
However, there are in the correspondence placed in evidence references to indicate 
clearly that the N. A. M. and the N. C. I. D. felt a deep interest in the personnel of 
the Judiciary and Labor Committees, and we think undoubtedly that this interest 
w'as at times^evinced by expressions from its representatives and officials. 

It is in evidence that shortly prior to the election of the committees of the Sixty- 
se(?ond Congress (this beiug the first Congress after the rule had been altered to pro¬ 
vide for the election of committees by the House itself instead of appointment by 
the Speaker), in April, 1911, Mr. John Kirby, jr., of the N. xV. M., and Mr. Emery, 
while calling upon Mr. Oscar W. Underwood, chairman of the committee designated 


32 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


to nominate to the Democratic caucus the Democratic members of the committees, 
expressed to him their interest in these two committees. Both of these gentlemen 
were examined upon this matter, and it appears from their testimony that this con¬ 
versation was general in character. No persons were suggested for membership, 
and no requests were made for the appointment or against the appointment of any 
individual. 

Mr. Samuel Gompers and Mr. Frank Morrison testified before the committee as to 
the efforts of the A. F. L. relative to the appointment of committees. 

The Committee on Labor, according to the testimony of Mr. Gompers, was created 
some 20 years ago for the purpose of having committed to it those matters of legislation 
particularly relating to workmen. Mr. Gompers states that he addressed a letter to 
the late Speaker Thomas B, Beed (probably in the Fifty-fourth Congress) requesting 
the appointment of Mr. Thomas W. Phillips, of Pennsylvania, as the chairman of that 
committee; that after the retirement of Mr, Phillips from Congress he, as president of 
the American Federation of Labor, addressed a similar letter to the same Speaker, 
requesting the appointment of Mr. John J. Gardner, of New Jersey, as chairman. It is 
also in evidence tnat in the Sixty-second Congress, the American Federation of Labor, 
through its officers, indorsed Mr. William B. Wilson, of Pennsylvania, for appointment 
as chairman of this committee, and in the Sixty-third Congress indorsed Mr. David J. 
Lewis and Mr. Frank Buchanan, in the order named, for such appointment. This 
testimony is given by both Mr. Gompers and Mr. Morrison, and it is stated that this 
indorsement was conveyed to Mr. Oscar W. Underwood in person. Mr. Gompers took 
no interest in any committee other than the Committee on Labor and only as to the 
chairmanship of that committee. Mr. Morrison testifies that he did offer some sug¬ 
gestions or ask for some recognition of the so-called labor group on the Committee on 
the Judiciary; this we assume was done by him as a representative of the A. F. L. 

These are all the efforts that appear from the testimony to have been made by the 
American Federation of Labor. The several gentlemen indorsed for the chairmanship 
of this committee seem to have been appointed, whether because of this indorsement, 
of course, your committee is not advised. 

So far as your committee could ascertain, the other organizations that have been 
referred to have made no efforts relative to committee appointments of any character, 
nor has any evidence or fact been brought to our attention of any efforts by any other 
organization, corporation, association, or person. 

EFFORTS IN ELECTIONS. 

By the second paragraph of the resolution the committee was directed to “inquire 
whether money has been used or improper influence exerted by said National Asso¬ 
ciation of Manufacturers or other person, persons, association, or organization or any 
agent thereof to accomplish the nomination or election or secure the defeat for nomi¬ 
nation or election of any candidate for the House of Representatives.” 

It has been heretofore stated that Mr. Mulhall, as field agent of the N. A. M., was 
the chief character in the general conduct of its political activities—that is, its activ¬ 
ities in elections. In his article in the World and Tribune he related a number of 
instances in which, acting for the organization, he participated actively in the efforts 
to influence and bring about the election or defeat of candidates for public office. 

The contests for election to the House of Representatives, in which he therein 
claimed the N. A. M. took part and in many of which,he participated for the asso¬ 
ciation, were (1) in the State of Maryland in 1904 in behalf of Messrs. Frank Wachter, 
Sydney E. Mudd, and Charles Shearn; (2) in 1906, during July, August, and Sep¬ 
tember, in the State of Maine, in behalf of Mr. Charles E. Littlefield; (3) later in that 
year, in the State of New Jersey, “doing campaign work in the seventh and eighth 
districts, represented by Parker and Wiley”; (4) in the State of New York, in behalf 
of Mr. George W. Fairchild in different years; (5) in the State of Wisconsin, in behalf 
of the late Representative Jenkins in 1908; (6) again, in New Jersey, in opposition to 
Mr. John J. Gardner in 1908—and in his behalf in 1910; (7) in the State of Ohio, in 
behalf of Mr. Ralph D. Cole; (8) against Mr. Loudenslager in New Jersey in 1910; 
(9) against Messrs. Wilson and Nichols in Pennsylvania in 1910, fighting the former also 
in 1912; (10) against Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey, at different times and particularly 
in 1910; (11) in behalf of Mr. Haskins for nomination in the State of Vermont; (12) 
in behalf of Messrs. Bartholdt and Coudrey in the State of Missouri. 

Mr. Mulhall claimed to have personally participated in all these contests, except 
those of Messrs. Loudenslager, Wilson, Nichols, Bartholdt, and Coudrey. He did not 
claim to have gone personally into the Haskins’ district in Vermont, but states that 
he sent him $300 for his campaign fund, this being done on behalf of the association. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 33 


He also claims to have written letters in behalf of Mr. James T. McDermott, in 1908, 
to manufacturers in his district, but, whether this was at the instance of the N. A. M. 
or upon his personal responsibility, is not stated. He was personally in that district 
in 1912, but this was after the severance of his connection with the association. 

We shall not undertake to discuss in detail his alleged doings in all these several 
districts. In many of them his participation was slight, and but little time was spent. 
He seems to have worked principally among the labor people in so far as his personal 
efforts were concerned, at times organizing his “Workingmen’s Protective Associa¬ 
tion.” That in this work he was given considerable discretion is apparent. 

We thmk it probable that many may have drawn from his article a somewhat exag¬ 
gerated impression of his own activity in these contests. 

That the N. A. ]\I. did participate actively and energetically in a number of these 
campaigns is, however, clearly established. Since about the year 1903 it has partic¬ 
ipated to a greater or less extent in political activities, giving encouragement and 
support to those who have strongly advocated the views for which it stood, rendering 
financial assistance to their campaigns at times, and opposing those who, by vigorous 
advocacy of the measures they have antagonized, have rendered themselves politically 
obnoxious to the association. It is true that the association sympathized with the 
late Judge Jenkins of Wisconshi, and sought to aid him in his campaign in 1910. It 
does not appear, however, that it furnished him any financial assistance other than 
the expense of sending Mr. Mulhall to his district and his maintenance while there. 
Mr. Van Cleave did raise $1,000 for the purpose of sendmg to his district, but did not 
send it after being advised that sufficient funds were being contributed from other 
sources. 

It seems, also, to be established that it opposed Mr. Gardner, of New Jersey, in 
1908, and supported him in 1910, but its efforts in neither campaign appear to have 
been very extensive. Mr. Hughes, of New Jersey, was most vigorously opposed in 
1910, and the N. A. M. or N. C. I. D., one or both, expended not less than $3,500 in 
his district in the effort to encompass his defeat. 

The efforts of Mulhall in behalf of Mr. Ralph D. Cole in his district seems to have 
been very few. He visited the district one time and spent not exceeding two days 
there, and the evidence does not disclose any particular work done by him. After 
his return to New York he seems to have been requested by Mr. Cole, or some one 
acting for him, to try and keep a Mr. Heiserman, who was very bitterly opposing Mr. 
Cole, out of the district. Heiserman had been a local attorney for the Pennsylvania 
Railroad at Urbana, Ohio, and was a citizen of that town. About the time of this 
particular campaign he had been promoted and was spending a portion of his time 
at the Pittsburgh, Pa., legal offices of the Pennsylvania Railroad. Mr. Cole, or 
some one acting for him, seems to have telegraphed Mulhall urging him to try and 
keep Heiserman in the east, and Mulhall did go to Philadelphia in an effort to get 
some of the high officials of the road to try and influence Heiserman to stay away. 
The effort was unsuccessful. 

In connection with this incident it seems appropriate at this point to discuss certain 
other of the allegations relating to Mr. Cole appearing in the newspaper articles. 

It is therein alleged, in substance, that Mr. Cole while a Member of Congress was 
a subservient adviser and emissary of the N. A. M.; that upon one occasion Emery 
sent Mulhall after Cole, and that the latter went to the office of the former and was 
there severely reprimanded by Emery for his attitude toward the Speaker; that Mr. 
Cole “began to splutter an explanation,” but “before leaving the office he promised, 
in the presence of Emery and myself, that he would quit his activities along those 
lines and help us, as directed by Emery to do.” 

Mr. Cole voluntarily appeared before your committee and asked to be heard. His 
testimony was full, frank, and candid. Upon the allegation recited he testified that 
upon one occasion Mulhall came to his office and attempted to protest against his 
(Mr. Cole’s) action relative to a certain legislative program in which President Taft 
was interested, and states (hearings, page 2663): 

“He never got any further with that protest. I ordered Mr. Mulhall out of that 
room, and I told him if he ever returned I would throw him through the window, 
and I have never seen Mulhall from that day to this. That is the way I went to the 
office of the National Association of Manufacturers. That is the last and only time 
I ever talked with Mulhall on matters pertaining to le^lation. 

“Fortunately there was a witness to that scene. I thank God, in the light of sub¬ 
sequent events, that I was not alone at that time, but that a man of the most rugged 
integrity was there, from the State of Ohio, a friend who served with Mr. Willis and 
me four years in the Legislature of Ohio. I wish to pause to remark that Mr. Emery 
in his testimony before the Senate committee has denied that I ever came to his 

H. Rept. 570, 63-2-3 


34 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


office at anytime, but he has forgotten the time that I asked him for the list of dele¬ 
gates. 

“Now, Mr. Chairman, this man is Mr. Clyde Painter. 

“Mr. Stafford. For a list of delegates or for a list of members? 

“Mr. Cole. For a list of members in the association in my district. C. R. Painter, 
of Bowling Green, was here to get one of his friends appointed as postmaster at Bowling 
Green and another at North Baltimore. There was a Democrat, Gen. Sherwood, 
representing his district, and consequently, being a friend of mine, he called on me 
and lived with me in my rooms at the hotel during that time. He was in my office 
when Mr. Mulhall came in, and a few days ago he came to me in Findlay and said 
“I remember when Mr. Mulhall came into yoiir office and will make affidavit to it.” 
If you want him here to testify, I will have him here to-morrow, but this is his affidavit 
[indicating]. It reads: 

“The State of Ohio, Hancock County, ss: 

“C. R. Painter, being first duly sworn, says near the 1st day of February, 1910, 
he was in Hon. R. D. Cole’s office in Washington, D. C., when Mr. Mulhall entered 
said office and engaged in conversation with Mr. Cole, representing that he had a 
message from Mr. Cannon. Mr. Cole became very angry and ordered Mr. Mulhall 
from his office. Mr. Mulhall left, and Mr. Cole and this affiant spent the rest of the 
day together, and this affiant says that Mr. Cole did not on that day go to Mr. Emery’s 
office, nor did he go on that night. 

“C. R. Painter. 

“Sworn to before me and signed in my presence this 9th day of September, 1913. 

“E. T. Dunn, 

Notary Public, Hancock County, OhioP 

Mr. Cole states positively that he never at any time received any compaign contri¬ 
bution from the N. A. M. or any of its officials (p. 2659). 

In view of all the testimony, your committee thinks it fair to state it does not believe 
that he was an emissary of this association or its agent in any way, or that he ever 
received any financial reward therefrom. We think Mr. Mulhall is in error as to hav¬ 
ing conducted Mr. Cole to Emery’s office as stated, and that the entire allegation as 
T« tnia meeting at Emery’s office and what occurred there is untrue. IMulhall’s own 
testimony upon it is confusing and contradictory upon its face. 

The most vigorous efforts which have been put forth by the association in any 
campaign were those exerted in 1900 in behalf of Mr. Charles E. Littlefield, of Maine. 
Because of the great prominence which Mr. Littlefield had attained in the country, 
as well as by reason of the conspicuous forces engaged for and against him, that con¬ 
test excited extraordinary interest and is a well-remembered event of recent political 

In his narrative Mr. Mulhall discusses it in much detail, and, being examined 
concerning it, reiterated under oath substantially what he had said in the article. 
The repetition of his statement and testimony is deemed unnecessary here. 

Mr. Littlefield has testified also before the committee concerning it at great length 
and with a fullness which leaves little or nothing to be desired. 

The duty of your committee under the resolution does not require that we enter 
upon an exhaustive review of all this testimony upon all the phases of the allegations 
made and denied or admitted. 

The essential facts under the resolution are that in that year Mr. Littlefield was 
opposed, first, for the nomination, and then for election. The American Federation 
of Labor entered the lists against him, and from nearly all parts of the country finan¬ 
cial aid was rendered him by individuals and associations that were antagonistic to 
the A. F. L. and in sympathy with the views which Mr. Littlefield entertained. 
Included among these were many members of the N. A. M. Marshal Cushing, then 
its agent, went personally into the district and rendered such aid as he could in the 
nominating campaign and later in the election. Mulhall was sent there to aid in 
the fight for election. From various sources contributions were made to his campaign 
fund. 

There was filed with your committee and published as “Appendix E” to the hear¬ 
ings an affidavit of Mr. Fred W. Wight, chairman of the Republican committee in 
that district, and, as such, manager of Mr. Littlefield’s campaign for election, stating 
that he had entire charge of the finances of said campaign and that from July 31 to 
September 11 the contributions amounted to $20,661.06. There is no evidence as to 
contributions prior to July 31. Mulhall’s expenses and salary while there were paid 
by the N. A. M., and not out of this fund. It appears that there were probably some 
additional contributions by county candidates that were not included in this fund. 


CHARGES against HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 35 


Mr. Littlefield does not know who all the contributors ^\ere. Some of them were 
members of the N. A, M.; others were not. It is Mr, Littlefield’s impression that the 
N. A. M. as an organization did not contribute, but of this he does not claim to be 
positive. Mr. Cushing was instrumental in raising part of this fund. On page 2742 
of the record there is printed a list filed by Mr. Littlefield of 38 names to whom he wrote 
letters of thanks after the election. All of them were nonresidents of the State of 
Maine. ^ These were all contributors to his campaign fund, with the possible exception 
of Cushing. Mr. Idttlefield states that this does not include all the contributors, and 
from memory gave the names of such others as he could. 

No detailed statement is available as to the manner of the expenditure of this fund. 
Mr. Littlefield testifies as to this, beginning at page 2747. He gives as items of expense 
the rent of halls, hire of bands, printing posters, postage, expense of bringing voters 
who were out of the district home to vote, the number being estimated at from 1,000 
to 1,500 and cost from 50 cents to $12 and $15 per voter, and payments to men, who 
he says, took time from their personal business to w^ork for him in that campaign. He 
estimates a “net expenditure” of about $15,000. Mr. Wight was paid $1,000 for his 
services, $1,000 was returned to the congressional committee, and to Mr. Littlefield 
himself there w_as paid out of this fund the sum of $3,000 to reimburse him for expendi¬ 
tures he had himself made for his own nomination and election. This last act your 
committee regards as one of most doubtful propriety. 

In his article and in his testimony Mr. Mulhall says much of the use of liquor in 
influencing voters in this election. No elaborate investigation was made as to this, 
but upon the w'hole his statement appears to be exaggerated, and, at any rate, what¬ 
ever w^as done in this regard clearly appears to have been without Mr. Littlefield’s 
connivance, consent, or knowledge. 

In the effort to defeat Representative Frank Buchanan, of Illinois, for election the 
N. C. I. D., in 1912, contributed the sum of $500 to the campaign fund of his opponent. 

It has been recited that Mr. Mulhall’s political work has been largely done by or¬ 
ganizing, in those sections where he worked, branches of the Workingmen’s Pro¬ 
tective Association, and using this in his campaigns, the expenses being borne by the 
N. A. M. Mr. Bird and Mr. Kirby have each testified as to this, as has Mr. Emery, 
Throughout the multitude of expense accounts of Mr. Mulhall placed in evidence 
there were items reading; “Paid member of the Stone Hoisters’ Union” so much; 
“Paid member of Silk Weavers’ Union” so much; “Paid to party workers to do cam¬ 
paign work and gather information in the labor unions’ ’ so much, etc. All these 
items were, according to Mulhall, for political work by the persons described, but not 
named, employed by him, except that in some instances the employment might have 
been for the obtaining of information to be used in connection with efforts to break 
strikes. It was understood by Mr. Bird and others who passed upon Mr. Mulhall’s 
accounts that he was employing these individuals in connection with the organization 
of these workingmen’s protective associations, and he was not required or expected 
to give the names of the persons so employed. 

The committee of the Senate engaged in lobby investigation had, prior to the 
organization of the House committee, issued subpoenas for and obtained the books 
and papers,of the N. A. M. and N. C. I. D. It caused an examination of the books 
to be made" by an expert accountant, and his testimony taken by the Senate com¬ 
mittee has been adopted by your committee and published as a part of the record, 
being “Appendix C,” page 2909. 

This evidence shows the aggregate expenditures, by years, of the N. A. M. from 
March 31, 1904, to March 31, 1913, March 31 being the end of its fiscal year. 

The total as given by Mr. Frawley was $1,785,398.37. This was expended for the 
following general purposes in the following amounts: President’s office, $98,381.19. 
Secretary’s office, $15,139.59. General office, $253,760.30. Membership, $134,259.94. 
Public affairs, $245,337.39. Board of directors, $13,812.82. Committees, $68,294.19. 
Convention, $38,979.71. Convention reports, $14,592.01. Freight bureau, $87,438.68. 
Foreign department (general), $120,679.55. Translations, $108,690.81. Credits, 
$59,680.47. Collections, $44,005.77. Lists, $12,996.87. Special reports, $2,729.68. 
Bulletin, $9,946.35. Law department (general), $26,401.57. Patents and trade¬ 
marks, $20,849.19. American industries, domestic, $193,001.97. American indus¬ 
tries, export, $119,435.92. American Trade Index, $62,361.88. Miscellaneous print¬ 
ing, $2,268.48. Fixtures and library, $17,490.82. Miscellaneous, $8,401.19. Service 
to Members, $11,751.41. Field men, $53,035.27. 

The public affairs expenditures included “publicity ^mrk, amounts paid Mulhall 
tariff commission convention, and other field men.” We understand that the funds 
expended in political campaigns are included under this head. Of the “public 
affairs” amount of $245,337.39, there seems to have been “refunded ” by the N. C. I. D. 
$58,324.65, leaving a net balance of $187,012.74. 


36 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


Frawley Exhibit No. 3 shows that from September 30, 1906, to January 31, 1912, 
there was paid to Mulhall by the N. A, M. $41,004.90 for salary and expenses, and 
F'rawley Exhibit No. 3a shows that from April 3, 1909 to November 1, 1910, there 
was paid to him by Ihe N. C. I. I), the sum of $5,418.80. ; 

Frawley Exhibit No. 5 shows the N. C. I. 1). to have'paid James A. Emery from 
January 31, 1908, to July 1, 1913, the sum of $74,440.98. 

It has not been possible for your committee to ascertain the aggregate amount 
which these organizations have expended in the effort to effect nominations and 
elections of Members of the House of Representatives, but we find that money has 
been by them expended for that purpose. 

Passing from the simple question of the use of money to that of whether “improper 
influence was exerted,” this being the second part of paragraph 2, your committee 
has to report that it looks with greatest suspicion upon the act of sending Mulhall 
abroad in the country furnished with funds to organize temporary and speedily dis¬ 
solving associations for use in elections, as was done again and again, and the secre¬ 
tiveness practiced induces in the common intelligence of men a surmise that there 
was not that scrupulousness which is attendant upon cleanly political practice. Mr. 
Mulhall’s political work seems to have been largely to proselyte members of labor 
unions along political lines and to do it by the use of money. The officials of the 
N. A. M., particularly Mr. Bird, knew this fact well, and Mr. Emery, of the N. C. I. D., 
also understood it, and Mulhall’s accounts on their faces were made ambiguous, but were 
well understood in the office and were passed without question. The extent of the 
political influence thus exerted your committee can not tell, but the method was im¬ 
proper and dishonest, and to the extent that this method was used it was the exertion 
of improper influence, and was disreputable. 

The political activities of the American Federation of Labor seem to have begun 
in 1906; that is to say, this was the first occasion upon which the organization attempted 
to influence the election or defeat of persons for Congress. In March of that year there 
was formally presented to the President of the United States, the President pro 
tempore of the Senate, and the Speaker of the House by the executive council of the 
American F'ederation of Labor what was termed a “bill of grievances”; this will be 
found in full, beginning at page 2415 of the House hearings. 

After reciting a belief that the Congress of the United States was manifesting indif¬ 
ference toward the legislation which the American Federation of Labor was demand¬ 
ing, there are set out the several questions in which it was at that time primarily 
interested, including the eight-hour law, convict-labor legislation, immigration 
restrictions, seamen’s rights, ship subsidy, trusts and interstate commerce, anti¬ 
injunction bill, creation of Department of Labor, and the right of petition by Govern¬ 
ment employees. And following this there is the statement “labor now appeals to 
you, and we trust that it may not be in vain. But if, perchance, you may not heed 
us, we shall appeal to the conscience and the support of our fellow citizens.” This 
indicated quite clearly the purpose of the federation to do that which it subsequently 
did do, viz, enter into political activities. Its first and principal efforts in that year 
seem to have been put forth in the second district of Maine in opposition to Mr. Little¬ 
field, who was opposed for nomination, and, after being nominated, was opposed for 
election. 

There was expended by the American Federation of Labor in his district about the 
sum of $1,500; this was used in the payment of expenses of speakers, six of whom, 
including Mr. Gompers himself, made speeches in the district in opposition to Mr. 
Littlefield; in paying rent for halls, printing of pamphlets, circulars, postage, and 
clerical work for addressing the matter mailed out. We find no record of expenditures 
for any other purpose than these. An interest was also taken in that year in the sixth 
New Jersey district in behalf of Mr. William Hughes for election as a Member of the 
House of Representatives, and in the eleventh Wisconsin district against the reelection 
of Mr. John J. Jenkins, and to the extent of a few speeches in some other districts in 
the country. But in none of these was there displayed as great an activity as in the 
Maine district referred to. The work in the other districts seems to have consisted 
wholly of a few addresses and the mailing out of literature. The expenditures for 
that year amounted to a little more than $8,000 for all political purposes. 

An itemized statement of the receipts for political expenditures and the disburse¬ 
ment of same, showing the sources from wRich derived and the payments out, will be 
found, for the several campaigns in which the A. F. L. participated, beginning at 
page 2428 of the hearing. 

In 1908 the American Federation of Labor again participated actively in the political 
campaign, there being expended in that year a little less than $8,500. The president, 
Mr. Gompers, made a general tour of the country, going into many congressional 
districts and speaking in behalf of the Democratic candidate for President of the 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 37 


Umted States, and in behalf of candidates for Congress in various parts of the country. 
Other speakers were likewise sent out by the federation, and literature was mailed, 
the records of various sitting Members of Congress upon legislation in which the 
A. F. L. was interested bemg furnished upon request of those seeking it. This record 
furnished was simply the record as compiled from the Congressional Record and gave 
the statement as to how the Member voted upon the several questions. 

In the year 1910 there was also political activity on the part of the A. F. L. similar 
in all respects to those exercised in the prior years, except that the amount collected 
and expended in the latter year was only about $3,GOO. 

In the year 1912 there were no political expenditures and no political efforts put 
forth by the organization as such. 

To the extent above set forth the committee finds that the A. F. L. did in the years 
named and in the manner described use money for the purpose of effecting the nomina¬ 
tion and election of Representatives in ('ongress. 

EMPLOYMENT OF HOUSE EMPLOYEES. 

We have also made examination with reference to the em])loyment and use of House 
employees. The substance of this allegation was that a chief page of the House, 
I. H. McMichael, was in the employ of the N. A. M., and the intimation was that he 
had used the pages of the House to spy upon Members, obtain information that might 
be gotten from overhearing conversations, and for other purposes, inconsistent with 
their duties as employees of the House; also during the course of the investigation it 
was charged that Henry Neal, the colored man who has served for many years as 
Speaker’s messenger, and Harry Parker, for a long time messenger or janitor of the 
Committee on Ways and Means, were in the employ of the association. 

We deem it unnecessary to review in detail the evidence respecting the employees. 
We find that I. H. McMichael while a chief page of the House was employed by Mul- 
hall, and that the fact was either known to Mr. Emery at the time or when it later came 
to his knowledge, was ratified by him, and also that his employment was ratified by 
Mr. Byrd when it came to his knowledge, and McMichael was paid by the N. A. M. 
and the N. C. I. D. The weight of the testimony is that he received a salary of $50 
per month.and was in the service from some time in the fall of 1909 until the close of 
the regular session of the Sixty-first (’ongress in August, 1910; and again from the 
beginning of the session in December, 1910, until the 1st of January, I9l2; that is to 
say, during the year 1911 he received ]>ay not only while Congress was in ses.non but 
during the vacation as well. 

It should be stated here that at the beginning of the extraordinary session of the 
Sixty-second Congress in April, 1911, McMichael ceased to be a chief page of the House 
and became for a time an employee located in the press gallery, serving in this capacity 
for a few months, after which he became an elevator operator, where he was employed 
until the publication of the charges, when he was dhscharged. 

The services rendered by McMichael to the N. A. M. seem to have consisted prin¬ 
cipally of the obtaining of such public documents, bills, reports, etc., as were desired 
by Mr. Finery or Mr. Mulhall. At times he would also ascertain by inquiry of the 
clerks of the committees the status of bills pending before such committees, when 
hearings would be had, and like informatioii of a public character. So far as your 
committee can determine, the work performed by Mr. McMichael was notliing 
more than that which any person familiar with the document room and having a 
general idea as to procedure and custom in the House might have performed. He 
did at one time furnish Mulhall with advance infor-mation of an amendment that was 
to be proposed to an appropriation bill. This has been referred to before and will be 
again discussed. Your committee does not believe that employees of the House 
should be jiermitted to accept outside employment, even of the character given 
McMichael in this instance. It tends to excite suspicion in the public mind, and 
may lead to dangerous and improper activities. This action of the N. A. M. officials 
in employing him and of McMichael in accepting the employment meets the strong 
disapproval of your committee. It was a violation of all the proprieties, and all 
persons connected with it deserve the severest censure. 

As for the use of the ])ages in the manner alleged, there is no evidence to substan¬ 
tiate this charge in any resqect. McMichael did a few times, perhaps, send one of the 
small boys with documents to Mr. Emery’s office. This was improper in that it took 
an employee of the House and sent him upon a private mission, thus removing him 
from his p’ace of duty, but the child, being under control of the chief page, of course, 
was innocent of any intent of wrongdoing. 

We think the weight of the evidence is against the allegation that the colored mes¬ 
sengers were regularly in the employ of or maintained any contractual relations with 
these organizations or their officers. Henry Neal, the Speaker's messenger, having 


38 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


access tx) the floor under the rule of the House, did at times go in for Members 
whom Mulhall might desire to see, and he probably showed some courtesies to 
officials of the organizations and their families in placing them in the gallery and 
admitting them to the Speaker’s anteroom. Parker, messenger of the Ways and 
Means Committee, seems at times to have procured some public documents of that 
committee for some of the officials interested. For these services liberal gratuities or 
tips ” were given them from time to time, and these were accepted. Your committee 
can not conceive that these men in their position and circumstances could have been 
considered as able to aid or effect in any way the course of legislation, and does not 
believe that they were employed as agents, but we think the acts of those men who 
were here as professional lobbyists, in constantly bestowing gratuities upon these 
employees, were reprehensible in the extreme and generally we feel that there is 
impropriety in the tipping of even the menial employees of the House. 

Your comniittee have carefully considered the testimony and find¬ 
ings of the select committee in regard to the lobby activities and 
operations of the National Association of Manufacturers and the kin¬ 
dred association known as the National Council for Industrial Defense, 
which, it appears, was an association in name only, with officers and 
agents but without w^ell-defined membership. It seems to have been 
organized as a mere adjunct to and mouthpiece of the National Asso¬ 
ciation of Manufacturers to aid in carrying out its legislative program 
at the Capital and carrying on political work in campaigns for the 
election of Representatives and Senators in different parts of the 
country. The record discloses that the National Association of Man¬ 
ufacturers, through its duly constituted agent, M. M. Mulhall, secretly 
employed and placed on the pay roU of the association I. H. McMi- 
chael, chief page of the House in the Sixty-second Congress, and paid 
him a stipulated amount or salary of $50 per month, which con¬ 
temptible transaction was known to and sanctioned by the chief offi¬ 
cers of said association. The testimony shows that at the beginning 
of a new Congress the officers and agents of this association attempted 
by surreptitious means to control or influence the organization and 
the personnel of certain committees of the House and the subcom¬ 
mittees thereof in the interest of that association, and in some 
instances their agent Mulhall boasted that they had done so. The 
testimony shows that the association and its kindred association, the 
National Council for Industrial Defense, took an active and vigorous 
part in congressional campaigns, taking a lively interest in the reelec¬ 
tion of Members whose views were in harmony with their legislative 
program and resorted to questionable and disreputable means to bring 
about th^' defeat of Members who had not approved their poheies. 
The testimony shows that large sums of money were expended in 
these congrrssional campaigns, and that they extended thenr cam¬ 
paign activities into various districts throughout the country. The 
methods employed were secretive, repr hensible, and d' serve the 
severest condemnation by the House. 

We have already called attention to the fact that the National 
Association of Manufacturers and the National Council for Industrial 
Defense are kindred organizations, apparently operating and acting 
together for a common purpose. J. Pnilip Byrd is general manager 
of the National Association of Manufacturers. John Kirby, jr., is 
president of the National Council for Industrial Defense. Mr. Byrd 
IS secretary and treasurer thereof and receives a salary of $3,000 per 
annum as such. Mr. Emery is counsel and receives a salary of 
$12,000 per annum. M. M. Mulhall, while in the employ of the^Na- 
tional Association of ^Manufacturers, was their field agent, political 
worker and lobbyist, and his work in these several capacities was 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 39 

highly praised by the officers of the association and by Mr. Emery, 
their counsel. In view of these facts and with the record of this case 
before us, it is the sense of this committee that the officers and 
agents of the National Association of Manufacturers and of the 
National Council for Industrial Defense herein referred to, namely, 
J. Philip Byrd, John Kirby, jr., James A. Emery, counsel, and M. M. 
Mulhall, pe shown by the testimony of the select committee to have 
engaged in carrying on improper and reprehensible lobby activities 
and systematic secret and disreputable practices against the honor, 
dignity and integrity of the House of Representatives, in the Sixty- 
second Congress. No evidence has been adduced in the hearings to 
show that similar acts or practices occurred after the beginning of the 
Sixty-third Congress. 

Subcommittee No. 3 of the Committee on the Judiciary to which 
the report, findings, and testimony of the select committee was re¬ 
ferred for consideration, in its report to the full committee recom¬ 
mended that the aforesaid officers and agents of said association be 
censured by the House and submitted in their report a formal resolu¬ 
tion looking to that end, but the Committee on the Judiciary having 
grave doubts, as already indicated in a previous paragraph in this 
report, as to the power of this House, under its implied constitu¬ 
tional prerogative, to rightfully punish persons other than Members 
by censure or otherwise for contempts committed against the House 
in a previous Congress, declines to follow the recommendation of the 
subcommittee for the formal censure by the House of the persons 
named. 

LOBBY LEGISLATION RECOMMENDED. 

(6) Your committee reports that the testimony taken by the select 
committee as aforesaid, is voluminous, covering more than 2,900 
printed pages and deals not only with the lobby activities of the 
National Association of Manufacturers and the National Council for 
Industrial Defense, but with the operations of the American Feder¬ 
ation of Labor, the Liquor Dealers’ Association of the District of 
Columbia, the local pawn brokers’ association, and other organiza¬ 
tions and associations which, by different methods, some proper and 
some improper, have heretofore attempted b}^ varying means to 
influence individual Members of Congress and to control or defeat 
legislation that vitally affected the interests of their respective organ¬ 
izations. 

We therefore feel that the most substantial service we can render 
the House or the country in submitting this report is not in recom¬ 
mending action by the House touching the conduct of its own Mem¬ 
bers or of particular individuals or associations who have become 
involved in charges disclosed by the testimony found in the hearings 
of the select committee, but in recommending the enactment of sub¬ 
stantive legislation to prevent the recurrence of similar abuses in the 
future. With this end in view, by the direction of the Committee 
on the Judiciary a bill prepared by the subcommittee, the purpose 
of which is to regulate lobbying before either House of Congress, has 
been introduced in the House by the chairman of the subcommittee, 
Mr. Floyd, and has been referred to the Committee on the Judiciary, 
and is now before the committee for consideration. It is expected 
that at an early date, your committee will be able to perfect and report 
to the House for its favorable consideration the proposed legislation. 


40 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


tlio necessity for wliich is made manifest by the disclosures of im¬ 
proper and disreputable practices brought to liglit in the investiga¬ 
tions and hearings of the select committee. We submit as a part of 
this report, for the information of the House, the bill which has been 
introduced as aforesaid, as follows: 

[H. R. 15466, Sixty-third Congress, second session.] 

A BILL To regulate lobbying and to require every legislative counsel and agent employed by any person, 

corporation, or association to promote or defeat legislation to register and to render an accurate account 

of all moneys expended by him in such capacity, and for other purposes. 

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America 
in Congress assembled, That every person, corporation, or association which employs 
any person to act as counsel or agent to promote or oppose in any manner the passage 
by Congress of any legislation affecting the pecuniary interests of any individual, cor¬ 
poration, or association as distinct from those of the whole people of the United States, 
or to act in any manner as a legislative counsel or agent, shall, within fifteen days after 
the date of such employment, cause the name of the person so employed or agreed to be 
employed to be entered upon a legislative docket hereinafter provided. It shall also 
be the duty of the person so employed to enter or cause to be entered his name upon 
such docket. Upon the termination of such employment such fact may be entered 
opposite the name of any person so employed either by the employer or employee. 

Sec. 2. That the Clerk of the House o! Representatives and the Secretary of the 
Senate shall each, respectively, prepare and keep two legislative dockets in con¬ 
formity with the requirements of the provisions of this A( t, one f)f which shall be 
known as the docket of Rgislative counsel before cr)nimitt^( s and the other as the 
docket of legislative agents. In the docket of legisl'ative counsel shall be entered 
the names of counsel or persons employed to ap])ear at a public hearing before a 
committee of Congress, or of either House thereof, for the ])ur]X)se of making an argu¬ 
ment or examining witnesses, and also the names of any r( gular legal counsel of any 
person, cor])oration, or ass)ciation who act or advise in relation to legislation; in the 
docket of legislative agents shall be ent'^red the names ot all agents employed for 
any purpose in connection with legislation in( hided within the terms of section one 
of this Act. In such doc'ket shall be ent"red the name and business address of the 
employer, the name, iTvsidenc'e, and occupation of the person employed, the date of 
the employment or agreement therefor, the length of time that the employment is to 
continue, if such time can be determined, and the special subject or subjects of legis¬ 
lation, if any, to which the employment relates. Such decuments must be public 
records and open to the inspection of any citizen upon demand at any time during 
the regular business hours ot the Clerk of the House or of the Secretary of the Senate. 

Sec. 3. That any person, corporation, or association employing any legislative coun¬ 
sel or agent shall, whenever further subjects of legislation are introduced or arise 
which said counsel or agent is to promote or oppose, make or cause to be made addi¬ 
tional entries opposite his or its name in the appropriate docket, stating such special 
employment and specifically referring to the petitions, orders, bills, or other subjects 
of legislation to which the same relates, and such entries shall also be made opposite 
the names of such coupsel or agents in such manner that such entries shall show all 
the subjects of legislation in relation to which any counsel or agent is employed. No 
person shall appear as counsel before any committee of Congress or either House thereof 
or act as agent in respect to any legislation coming within the terms of section one 
of this act unless his name appears upon the docket of legislative counsel or agent as 
employed in respect to such matters as above provided. No person or private cor¬ 
poration or association shall, directly or indirectly, employ any person as legislative 
counsel or agent in respect to any legislation coming within the terms of section one 
of this act unless the nanae of such person is duly entered upon the legislative docket 
as provided by the provisions of this act. No person shall be employed as a legis¬ 
lative counsel or agent for a compensation dependent in any manner upon the passage 
or defeat of any proposed legislation or upon any other contingency connected with 
the action of Congress or either branch thereof or of any committee thereof. No 
person whose name is entered on the docket of the legislative counsel shall render 
any service otherwise than by appearing before a committee as aforesaid and by doing 
work properly incident thereto or of giving legal advice in case of regular legal counsel of 
corporations or associations unless his name is also entered on the docket of legislative 
agents. 

Sec. 4. That legislative counsel and agents required to have their names entered 
upon the legislative docket shall file with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 41 


of the Senate, respectively, witliin twenty days after making such entry, a written 
authorization to act as such, signed by the person or corporation employing them. 

Sec. 5. That witliin tliirty days after the final adjournment of each session of 
Confess, every person, corporation, or association whose name appears upon the leg¬ 
islative docket of the session shall file with the Clerk of the House and the Secretary 
of the Senate, respectively, a complete and detailed statement, sworn to before a 
notary public or justice of the peace by the person making the same, or in case of a 
corporation by its president or treasurer, of all expenses paid or incurred by such 
person, corporation, or association in connection with the employment of legislative 
counsel or agents or in connection with promoting or opposing in any manner the 
passage by Congress of any legislation coming within section one of tliis act. Corpo¬ 
rations and individuals rec^uired to render accounts within the provisions of this act 
shall render such accounts in such form as shall be required by the Clerk of the House i 
and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively, and such reports shall be open to public 
inspection. 

Sec. 6. That any person, corporation, or association violating any of the provisions 
of this act shall be fined not less than $200 and not more than $1,000. Any person 
employed as legislative counsel or agent who shall fail to comply with any provision 
of this act or violate any of the provisions hereof shall be fined not less than $100 nor 
more than $1,000, and shall be debarred from acting as legislative counsel or agent 
for a period of three years from the date of such conviction. It shall be the duty of the 
Attorney General upon information to bring prosecutions for the violations of the 
provisions of this act. 

Sec. 7. That the provisions of this act shall not apply to any municipality or to any 
other public corporation or to any county or State. 

Sec. 8 . That it shall be unlawful for any person employed for a pecuniary con¬ 
sideration to act as legislative counsel or agent as defined in this act to attempt per¬ 
sonally or directly to influence any Member of Congress, or of either branch thereof, 
to vote for of against any measure pending therein otherwise than by appearing before 
the regular committees thereof when in session or by newspaper publications or public 
addresses, or by written or printed statements or arguments or briefs delivered to each 
Member of Congress: Provided, That before delivering such statement, argument, or 
brief, twenty-five copies thereof shall be first deposited with the Clerk of the House 
and the Secretary of the Senate, respectively. No officer, agent, appointee, or em¬ 
ployee of either branch of Congress or of the United States shall attempt to influence 
any Member of Congress, or either branch thereof, to vote for or against any measure 
pending therein affecting the pecuniar}^ interest of such person, excepting in the 
manner authorized in the case of legislative counsel or agent. 

Sec. 9. That any person \dolating any of the provisions of the preceding section 
shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and on conviction thereof shall be punished 
by a fine of not exceeding $200 or may be imprisoned not exceeding six months. 

Sec. 10. That it shall be unlawful for any legislative counsel or agent, or for any 
person, cor])oration, or association employing any suc'h legislative counsel or agent, 
to make any present, gift, or donation of anything of value or to make any cam})aign 
contribution, directly or indirectly, or to make any loan of money to any Senator 
or Representative during the continuance of any such employment or witliin two 
years after the termination of such employment. 

Sec. 11. That it shall be unlawful for any legislative counsel or agent, or for any 
person, corporation, or association employing any such legislative counsel or agent, 
to make any present, gift, or donation of anything of value or to make any campaign 
contribution, directly or indirectly, or to make any loan of money to any candidate 
who is opposing for the nomination or for reelection any Senator of Representative 
during the continuance of any such employment or within two years after the ter¬ 
mination of such employment. 

Sec. 12. That it shall be unlawful for any Senator or Representative, or foi any 
person who is a candidate opposing for the nomination or for reelection any Senator 
or Representative, to accept any present, gift, or donation of anything of value, or 
to knowingly accept, directly or indirectly, any campaign contribution, or to accept 
any loan of money from anjr legislative counsel or agent or from any person, corpor¬ 
ation, or association employing any such legislative counsel or agent during the con¬ 
tinuance of any such employment or within two years after the termination of such 
employment. 

Sec. 13. That any person or corporation violating any of the provisions of the three 
preceding sections hereof shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon con¬ 
viction thereof shall be fined not less than $200 nor more than $5,000. 


I 


I 




VIEWS OF THE MINORITY. 


The undersigned, members of the Committee on the Judiciary, 
heartily concur with the committee in holding that the powers of 
the House over its Members are plenary, that in cases of trial of 
Members for misconduct technical rules of procedure in courts of 
law do not apply, that the authority to punish private citizens for 
reprehensible conduct in connection with the affairs of a previous 
House is doubtful, and that the enactment of legislation to regulate 
the lobby is highly desirable, but are unable to agree with the conclu¬ 
sions of the committee as to what action the House should take in the 
case of Mr. James T. McDermott, a Member thereof, and on that 
subject very respectfully submits the following views: 

Being convinced that Mr. McDermott has been guilty of gross mis¬ 
conduct, wholly inconsistent with his public trust and duty, the 
undersigned feel constrained to hold, under the precedents and the 
laws of Congress and the testimony taken by the select committee, 
that the House should forthwith expel him. 

The large purpose of any action to be taken in cases of this kind is 
not punishment of an individual, but the protection of the honor of 
the House, the maintenance of the confidence of the people in its in¬ 
tegrity, and the preservation of its self-respect before the eyes of 
the world. 

It is a low, a false, and a dangerous conception of congressional 
ethics, indefensible anywhere, except, it may be, in certain half-civil¬ 
ized lands, that a member of a legislative body may run the gamut 
of all forms of misconduct if he does but carefully provide such ex¬ 
planations. evasions, shifts, and contrivances that when brought be¬ 
fore an ihvestigating committee there shall not be “ that satisfactory 
character of evidence ” to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt as 
if being tried for crime in a court of law. To just barely keep out of 
the penitentiary should not insure a Member a seat in Congress. 

The unvarying standard of official conduct required of Members 
in the American Congress from the Blount case, in 1797, up to the 
McDermott case, now before us, has been one of loyalty to trust and 
duty, not the standard in effect applied by the committee, that 
criminal conduct must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. 
For violating this higher standard of official ethics, AVilliam Blount 
was expelled from the United States Senate by his colleagues, 
many of whom had been members of the Constitutional Conven¬ 
tion, and by the overwhelming vote of 25 to 1. Ever since, with¬ 
out a single exception, when Members have so far forgotten their 
great privileges and high place as to act in ways inconsistent with 
duty and station, an overwhelming majority of the membership has 
called into use that wholesome constitutional power of expulsion. 

43 



44 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

What is termed censure is for an entirely different purpose, as 
seen in the precedents. It is that form of correction made use of 
frequently to maintain order and decorum in the Chamber and to 
punish violations of the conventions and established etiquette of 
courteous parliamentary procedure. It is an expression of dis¬ 
approval of parliamentary offenses that are pardonable, if a Mem¬ 
ber retracts the unparliamentary language spoken, for this kind 
of misconduct does not tend to leaven nor taint the whole body 
with gross immorality or crime. The committee’s recommendation 
is the mildest of the two known forms of censure. Even for parlia¬ 
mentary offenses the offending Member is brought before the bar 
of the House, where the Speaker pronounces censure upon him; but 
in this case the committee recommends mere verbal censure for 
offenses so grave that even the committee finds him guilty of “ acts 
of grave impropriety unbecoming the distinguished position he 
holds.” If it be the purpose of the committee to punish Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott, instead of purging the House of his presence in it, surely 
for so grave and various forms of misconduct the proposed form 
of censure is entirely illogical, inconsistent, and ineffective. 

It is respectfully submitted that from the precedents set forth in 
the statement attached to this report and made a part thereof it is 
perfectly clear that there is a wide distinction in purpose between cen¬ 
sure and expulsion, as well as entirely different standards of the de¬ 
gree of probative force of evidence required to convict of crime in a 
court of law as against what is necessary to justify expulsion from a 
seat in Congress. Everyone must see the reason for this difference. 
The misdeeds of a private citizen and of a public official lie in wholly 
different planes. The difference in purpose of any action to be taken 
is not punishment, but purgation; the difference in the nature of 
private and public misconduct was well stated by the select com¬ 
mittee in these words: “ Some things which a private citizen may do 
with impunity must be avoided by one in official station,” and this 
difference becomes most marked when we look to its inevitable 
effects. Misconduct by the private individual, the man not clothed 
with official function, is limited to a very narrow circle of conse¬ 
quences: but quasi corrupt or near-criminal action, whether in its 
inward essence or its outward form, committed by a Eep)*esentative 
in Congress, is incalculable in its far-reaching and ever-widening 
harmful influence and evil effect. Therefore the House is not pri¬ 
marily concerned with the man temporarily exercising a repre¬ 
sentative function, but with the purity, the integrity, and the dignity 
of the representative function temporarily exercised by the man. 

In the statement hereto appended are set out the statutes against 
bribery, extortion, and contributions by corporations of campaign 
funds. Upon these counts, one or all of them, Mr. McDermott has, 
in varying degrees, been found guilty of violating the spirit if not 
the letter of the law. 

His attorney said to the Judiciary Committee: 

Gentlemen, I yield to no one in the loftiness of niy ideal of the just, honest, 
and wise legislator. I concede to no man a keener perception of what is un- 
t)ecoming the dignity of the high office of a Representative of the American 
people. And this is so because my father was a member of this body from the 
State that is represented so well by the distinguished chairman of this com¬ 
mittee. From him. who was my ideal knight without fear and without re- 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 45 


this^ hi 2 h taught, au almost sacred revereuce for 

not%Hn^ ^ I do not stand here-I can 

n?ietv if vnn ^-n or condone the indiscretions or the acts of impro- 

Lllcf’commhJpp^ fm McDermott has freely confessed before the 

select committee,-foi which he has already been bitterly punished. But I say 

ishment^of m’ ^^t)on you that no further pun- 

Sd^ d^ ^ ‘ McDermott is necessary in this case, all of the facts being con- 


A siibcomiiiittee of the Judiciary Committee thus stroimlv 
condemns ” his conduct: 

Me do not exonerate him and can not and have no disposition to exculpate 
him from the imputations and consequences resulting from his improper acts, 

embodied in the hearings. In his associations 
with M. M. Mulhall, a lobbyist of the National Association of Manufacturers, 
and in accepting loans of large sums of money from Horning, a pawnbroker, 
Harvey, a member of the Retail Liquor Dealers’ Association, both 
of whom were vitally interested in legislation pending before Congress, we 
hnd that Representative McDermott has been guilty of acts of impropriety 
incompatible with that high sense of honor and decorum which should charac¬ 
terize the conduct of a Member of this House. 


The select committee finds him guilty in this language: 

The Members of the House know Mr. McDermott, know his ideals, and his 
characteristics as the public generally does not, and in the nature of things, 
can not know them. His training and associations have not given him the 
ethical perceptions and standards relative to public office that usually charac¬ 
terize public men. 

We can not say that he has been corrupted in his votes, but some things 
which a private citizen may do with impunity must be avoided by one in official 
station, and we should feel that we had shirked a duty which we owe to the 
House and the country did we not say that we are driven, much to our regret, 
to the conclusion that he has been guilty of acts of grave impropriety, unbe¬ 
coming the dignity of the distinguished position he occupies. 

Eepresentative MacDonald, in a minority report from the select 
committee, said: ^ 


While I regard the case of Representative McDermott as not the most vital 
thing developed by this inquir:^ being only a case of individual venality result¬ 
ing from the vicious and corrupting influences which are shown to have been 
in operation around the House, yet any refusal to recognize the enormity of 
such shocking disregard by a Member of his solemn duty and trii-st can not but 
tend to weaken the standing of the House. The disciplinary powers of the 
House must be rigorously and unsparingly applied, unless it is intended to 
minimize the offense. 


The undersigned in this minority report respectfully submit that 
a careful weighing of the evidence by the membership of the House, 
provided we lay aside for the moment a wholly misplaced feeling of 
personal sympathy and look at the contradictions, evasions, and 
shifts in his testimony with cold common sense and dispassionate 
judgment, must inevitably lead to the conviction that Mr. McDermott 
is guilty, to say the least, of corrupt misconduct, wholly incompatible 
with official honor, trust, and duty. His admitted transactions with 
the District liquor dealers’ lobby; his undeniable transactions with 
the pawnbrokers’ lobby; his peculiar relationship with the National 
Brewers’ Association; his proven transactions with Mulhall in ac¬ 
cepting sums of money; his inexcusable action in asking the Manu¬ 
facturers’ Association for financial* credit; and his soliciting cam¬ 
paign funds from corporations, knowing that such contributions are 


46 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

in violation of law, these interests being vitally concerned in pending 
legislation and in every instance it being clear that Mr. McDermott 
received these funds in his representative capacity—all these venal 
transactions lead imperatively to the conclusion of guilt to a moral 
certainty. 

And when these grosser offenses are supplemented by his other 
misdeeds—his abuse of the control of his clerk-hire allowance, in 
obtaining his clerk’s checks many days before due to pawn them 
with pawnbrokers without payment of interest and for his personal 
use; his abuse of the franking privilege; his guilty knowledge of the 
highly questionable conduct of a confidential employee of the House 
in the pay of a notoriously corrupt lobbyist; his sharing in the 
salary of such employee, even if only by way of loans, knowing the 
source; his procuring a room in the Capitol itself for this notorious 
lobbyist to occupy for months when Congress was in session; his 
duplicity, double-dealing, and generally dishonorable conduct to the 
labor people he represents; his bad habits and worse immoralities, 
suppressed in the record for the sake of decency and innocence^— 
how can we declare to our constituents and to the world at large in 
a solemn record vote, that shall stand for all time as our approved 
standard of official conduct, that Mr. McDermott is morally fit and 
worthy to hold the high office of Member of Congress in this en¬ 
lightened land we proudly call our country ? 

This will not be done if Members seriously consider the conse¬ 
quence—the lowered standing of the House of Representatives in 
the confidence of the American people. This House will be judged 
by its worst Member, and rightly so, when it approves his miscon¬ 
duct. There is nothing that breeds disrespect for law and justice on 
the part of the masses of men like the lawlessness in high places, and 
especially when the lawmaker himself is lawless and the lawmaking 
body itself protects him in his high place. The cry for the initia¬ 
tive, the referendum, and the recall has but one meaning—increasing 
distrust of the loyalty, the integrity, and the justice of public serv¬ 
ants. If every Member of this House Avere a McDermott, what would 
be our standing in the eyes of the people of our countr}^ and of the 
nations of the world? But we make his standard ours when, his 
misconduct Imown to us, we permit him to sit in this body to pass 
laws for the American people. 

Consider also its bearing upon our constitutional duty in the im¬ 
peachment of a judge. Shall we have a double standard, where both 
are guilty of the same official misconduct, censure for our colleague, 
the lavrmaker, but impeachment for the judge ? What Archbald did 
McDermott has done. What Spear and Wright are charged with, in 
cases now pending before the Judiciary Committee, McDermott cer¬ 
tainly has been guilty of in slightly different form. Surely the House 
can not afford to apply one standard of ethics for the lawmaker and 
another for the judge. If we measure the judges before us with the 
measure applied to Mr. McDermott, as recommended by the com¬ 
mittee, how shall we have the hardihood to impeach a judge, except 
upon evidence of crimes committed beyond a reasonable doubt ? 

The expulsion of Lorimer raised immeasurably the standing of the 
Senate in the eyes of the American people; the removal of Archbald 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 47 

elevated the judiciary, and shall we jeopardize the reputation of the 
House by merely saying to McDermott: 

We find you guilty of everything short of crime. Nor will we hold that you 
have not committed crime; but because we fail to find “ that satisfactory char¬ 
acter of evidence ” which would convict you in a court of law, we will only 
censure you. 

Certainly this is most illogical and ineffective. Exposure of mis¬ 
conduct is not punishment; and censure is merely formal declaration 
of guilt. Just as the penalty for guilt on the part of the private 
citizen under the law is fine and imprisonment, so the remedy for 
gross misconduct on the part of the Kepresentative in Congress 
under the Constitution is expulsion. There is but one course for 
the House to pursue to keep its honor unsullied, its ideals pure and 
high; one course alone that will commend itself to our consciences as 
moral and patriotic men; one course that will be approved by all the 
people of our country, who will hold us responsible if we fail to 
vindicate the established standard of official conduct, maintained for 
more than a hundred years. We can not merely censure Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott; for gross, extended, various, and indeiensible misconduct 
in his representative capacity we must expel him. 

The following resolution will be offered as a substitute for that of 
the committee: 

Resolved, That James T. McDermott, a Representative from the State of 
Illinois, having been guilty of gross misconduct entirely inconsistent with his 
public trust and duty, be, and he is hereby, expelled from his seat as a Member 
of this House. 

Respectfully submitted. 

John M. Nelson. 

George S. Graham. 

STATEMENT ACCOMPANYING VIEWS OF MINORITY. 

The undersigned respectfully submit the following statements as 
a part of the foregoing views: 

The House does not sit as a court to try Members for crimes and 
misdemeanors, but to determine whether official conduct is con¬ 
sistent with trust and duty. 

The committee in its report disclaims any disposition to exoner¬ 
ate or exculpate Mr. McDermott “ from the imputations and conse¬ 
quences of his own improper acts as disclosed in the testimony em¬ 
bodied in the hearings”; but the only reason it assigns for mere 
censure, instead of expulsion, is found in these words: 

We fail to find in the record that satisfactory character of evidence which, 
in our judgment, would warrant or justify expulsion. 

The committee, it is submitted, here falls back into the grievous 
error of assuming that the House in deciding a case of this kind 
sits as a trial court to try a Member for crime upon the same tech¬ 
nical probative evidence required in a court of law, a position re¬ 
jected in the body of its report. Upon this point the attention of 
the House is directed to this paragraph of the report of the select 
committee in the cases of Oakes Ames and James Brooks, a report 
cited approvingly by the committee: 

The close analogy between this power and the power of impeachment is 
deserving of consideration. 


48 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


Tbe i^rent i)uriK)S(‘ of the i)ower of iiiipeneliineiit is to remove mu unfit and 
unworthy incumbent from ofiice, and thoujjh a judfjnient of impeachment may 
to some extent operate as punishment, that is not the princii)al object. Mem¬ 
bers of Congress are not subject to be impeached, but may be expelled, and the 
principal purpose of expulsion is not as punishment, but to remove a Member 
whose character and conduct show that he is an unfit man to participate in the 
deliberations and decisions of the body, and whose presence in it tends to bring 
the body into contempt and disgrace. 

The language of Charles Sumner in his argument in the Bright 
case presents, it is submitted, the proper view of the character of 
evidence required to expel a Member. He says: 

Under the Constitution the Senate in a case like the present is the absolute 
judge, free to exercise its power according to its own enlightened discretion. 
It may justly declare a Senator unworthy of a seat in this body on evidence 
defective in form or on evidence which does not constitute positive crime. 
* * * It is obvious the Senate may act on any evidence which shall be satis¬ 
factory to show that one of its Members is unworthy of his seat without bring¬ 
ing it to any test of the rules of law. 

Upon this point the precedents are conclusive. 

SENATE PRECEDENTS. 

On July 3, 1797, the Senate received a letter from the President 
of the United States, transmitting a letter purporting to have been 
written by William Blount, a Senator of the United States, for the 
purpose of laying plans for the cooperation of certain Indians of 
the South with British agents in an enterprise inimical to the in¬ 
terests of the United States and Spain. This letter was addressed 
to one Casey, an employee of the United States in the Indian 
country. 

Commenting on this case. Story says: 

* * * In July 1797, William Blount was expelled from the Senate for a 

high misdemeanor entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a 
Senator. The offense charged against him was an attempt to seduce an Amer¬ 
ican agent among the Indians from his duty and to alienate the affections and 
confidence of the Indians from the public authorities of the United States and 
a negotiation for services in behalf of the British Government among the In¬ 
dians. It was not a statutable offense, nor was it committed in his official 
character, nor was it committed during the session of Congress, nor at the seat 
of government. Yet, by an almost unanimous vote (25 yeas to 1 nay), he was 
expelled from that body and he was afterwards impeached (as has already 
been stated) for this, among other charges. It seems, therefore, to be settled 
by the Senate, upon full deliberation, that expulsion may be for any misde¬ 
meanor which, though not punished by any statute, is inconsistent with the 
trust and duty of a Senator. (Commentaries on the Constitution, sec, 836, vol. 
1, p. 607.) 

In the report on the case of Senator John Smith, of Ohio, Mr. 
John Quincy Adams says: 

The power of expelling a ^Member for misconduct results, on principles of 
common sense, from the interest of the Nation that the high trust of legislation 
should be invested in y)ure hands. * * * 

Tbe question upon the trial of a criminal cause before the courts of common 
law is not between guilt and innocence, but between guilt and the possibility 
of innocence. If a doubt can possibly be raised, either by the ingenuity of the 
party or of his counsel * * * that doubt must be decisive for acquittal; 

and the verdict of not guilty, perhaps in nine cases out of ten, means no more 
than that the guilt of the party has not been demonstrated in the precise, spe¬ 
cific, and narrow forms prescribed by law. ♦ * * 

But when a member of a legislative body lies under the imputation of aggra¬ 
vated offenses, and the determination upon his cause can operate only to re- 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 49 


move liim from a station of extensive powers and important trust, this dispro¬ 
portion between the interests of ihe public and the interest of the individual 
disappear; if any disproportion exist, it is of an opposite kind. It is not better 
that 10 traitors should be Members of the Senate than that 1 innocent man 
should sutler expulsion. In either case no doubt the evil would be great. But 
in the former it would strike at the vitals of the Nation; in the latter it might, 
though deeply to be lamented, only be the calamity of the individual. (Cited 
by the committee. Hinds’ Precedents, vol. 2. sec. 1286.) 

Ill 18()2 Jesse D. Bi*ig-]it was expelled from the Senate for writing 
a letter to Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederation of States, 
in March, ]S(U, introducing one Thomas B. Lincoln, who wished to 
dispose of an improvement in firearms. The discussion in the Senate 
shows that many Senators voted for Mr. Bright’s expulsion not be¬ 
cause he had been guilty of any offense against the laxYS of this 
country; he was expelled because it was believed that his desires and 
conduct were opposed to the interests and the welfare of the Nation. 
This will be clearly seen from the language used by Mr. Sumner: 

But the question iiuiy be i)rop<‘rly asked if (his inquiry is to be conducted as 
in a court of .iustice under .all the restrictions and technical rules of .iudicial 
proceedings? Clearly not. Under the Constitution the Senate in a case like the 
present is the absolute .judge, free to exercise its i)ower according to its own 
enlightened discretion. It may .lastly declare a Senator unworthy of a seat in 
this body on evidence detective in form or on evidence even which does not 
constitute positive crime. * * * It is obvious that the Senate may act on 

any evidence which shall be satisfactory to show that one of its ^Members is 
unworth.v of his seat without bringing it to the test of any rules of law. It is 
true that the good name of the individual is in question; but so also is the good 
name of the Senate, not forgetting, also, the welfare of the country; and if 
there are generous presumptions of itersonal innocence, so also are there irre¬ 
sistible instincts of self-defense which comi)el us to act vigorously not only to 
l)reserve the good name of the Senate, but also to preserve the country. (Cong. 
Globe. 2d sess. 37th Cong., ]d. 1, pp. 412, 413, 414.) 

In the same debate ^Ir. Davis, of Kentuclrv, said: 

There is no law which defines any i)articular class of offenses that shall be 
sufficient to expel a Senator from his seat. The common law does not. There 
is no statute law that does. There are no rules of evidence establishing techni¬ 
cal rules of testimony that are to guide and control and .govern this body in 
getting its lights and reaching its conclusion when a Senator is thus on trial. 
The general rule and principle of law and of reason and common sense is that 
whatever disqualifies a Member of the vSenate from the proper discharge of his 
duties, whatever it may be. is sufficient and ought to be held sufficient for his 
expulsion, and whatever evidence satisfies the mind reasonably and according 
to moral certainty and truth of the existence of that cause is sufficient evidence, 
without resorting to the technical rules of testimon.v upon which to convict him. 
That is the law of this country. It is the law of England. It is the law of 
Parliament. I will read from Story’s Commentaries on the Constitution, section 
836, a short paragraph. 

There is the touchstone. Any conduct, any opinions, any line of action as a 
Senator which is inconsistent with the duty of a Senator is sufficient cause for 
his expulsion and ought to be the rule of reason and of common sense. * * * 

The principle deduced from the authorities is this: There is no common law, 
no statutory law, there is no parliamentary law that binds the Senate to any 
particular definition of crime or offense in acting in this or any other case of 
the kind. On the contrary, as these authorities establish, it is a matter coming 
within the discretion of the tribunal trying the Senator. (Cong. Globe. 2d sess. 
37th Cong., pt. 1. ])p. 434, 435.) 

In the progress of the debate Mr. McDoiigall said: 

* * * It is no question of law. We have not asked whether the Senator 

from Indiana is guilty or not guilty. We have to .judge him in our best .iudg- 


IT. Kept. 570, 63-2-4 



50 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


iiieiit, and by that we try him; and we say yea or iniy, as we think, whether he 
be a true man or not to sit in the Federal councils to conduct the affairs of the 
United States. (Cong. Globe, 2d sess. 37th Cong., pt. 1, p. 635.) 

To the same effect were the remarks made in- tlie course of the 
same debate by Mr. Lane, Mr. Howe, Mr. Johnson, and Mr. Brown¬ 
ing. (Cong. Globe, 2d sess. 37tli Cong., pt. 1, ])p. 417, 418, 560, 584, 
623, 624.) 

PRECEDEKTS IN PARLIAMENT. 

In the British Parliament the same principle has been recognized 
in a number of cases and is noAv fully established. 

In the year 1812 Benjamin Walsh was expelled from the House 
of Commons as “ unworthy and unfit to continue a member of this 
House ” on account of said Walsh having been guilty of “ gross fraud 
and notorious breach of trust,” although his offense was one “ not 
amounting to felony.” (67 Commons Journal, 175-176.) In that 
case the chancellor of the exchequer said: 

He could not think that because an act of Parliament did not make a moral 
crime a legal one the House of Commons should be i)revented from taking cog¬ 
nizance of it. (Hansard’s Parliamentary Debates, 1st series, vol. 21, p. 1199.) 

In the year 1814 Sir Thomas Cochrane Avas expelled from the 
House of Commons for being concerned in a conspiracy to spread 
the false report that the French Army had been defeated, Napoleon 
killed, and that the allied sovereigns Avere in Paris, the object to be 
attained by such false report being ‘‘ to occasion a temporary rise 
and increase in the prices of the public Government funds” to the 
injury of those Avho should purchase such funds “during such last- 
mentioned temporary rise and increase in the prices thereof.” (69 
Commons Journal, 427-433.) 

HOUSE PRECEDENTS. 

In the cases cited in the majority report in Avhich the conduct ol 
Oakes Ames, a EepresentatiA'C from Massachusetts, and James 
Brookes, a Representative from the State of New York, Avas under 
inA^estigation by a special committee. This select committee said: 

The close analogy between this power and the power of impeachment is 
deserving of consideration. 

The great purpose of the power of impeachment is to remove an unfit and 
unworthy incumbent from office, and though a judgment of impeachment may 
to some extent operate as punishment, that is not the principal object. Mem¬ 
bers of Congress are not subject to be impeached, but may be expelled, and the 
principal purpose of expulsion is not as punishment, but to remove a Member 
whose character and conduct show that he is an unfit man to participate in the 
deliberations and decisions of the body and whose presence in it tends to bring 
the body into contempt and disgrace. 

* * * Upon what principle is it that such a jurisdiction can be main¬ 
tained? It must be upon one or both of the following: That the offense shows 
him to be an unworthy and improper man to be a Member or that his conduct 
brings odium and reproach upon the body. (Hinds’ Precedents, vol. 2, p. 862.) 

STATE PRECEDENTS. 


The case of His v. Bartlett: In this case His Avas expelled on the 
ground that his “ conduct on a visit to LoAvell, as one of the com¬ 
mittee of the House, was highly improper and disgraceful, both to 
himself and to the House, of Avdiich he was a Member.” 


CHAKGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 51 

Everything said by the court had relation to such a state of facts, 
f he case is one of expulsion for gross misconduct as a Member and 
in the pertormance of his duty as a Member. 

Speaking through Chief Justice Shaw, the court, among other 
things, said: ^ 

The power of expulsion is a necessary and incidental power to enable the 
House to perform its high functions and is necessary to the safety of the State, 
Jt IS a power of protection. A Member may be physically, mentally, or morallv 
whollj^ nnht; he may be atllicted with a contagions disease, or insane, or noisy, 
violent, and disorderly, or in the habit of using profane, obscene, and abusive 
necessary to put extreme cases to test a jirinciple. (3 Gray, 


TEXT WRITERS ON CONSTITUTION. 

Von Holst's says: 

Both Houses of Congress must have been granted every power needed to 
guard themselves and their Members against any impropriety on the part of a 
Member and to preserve their dignity and reputation among the people. It is 
wholly for them to say what conduct they are to regard as dishonorable enough 
to require expulsion. An appeal from their decision lies only to the court of 
public opinion, a court which brings in its verdict at the elections. (Constitu¬ 
tional Law of the United States, 102.) 

Cushing says: 

It seems iiecessiu-y, also, to remark that a Member may be expelled or dis¬ 
charged from sitting as such, which is the same thing in milder terms, for 
many causes for which the election could not be declared void. (Law’and 
Practice, Legislative Assemblies, p. 8.3, sec. 84.) 

Paschal says: 

It seems to be settled that a Member may be expelled for any misdemeanor, 
which, though not punishable by any statute, is inconsistent with the trust 
and duty of a Member. (Paschal on the Constitution, p. 87.) 

Tucker says: 

The motion to expel a Member may be for disorderly behavior or disobedience 
to the rules of the House in such aggravated form as to show his untitness 
longer to remain in the House, and the cases above cited, as well as the reason 
of the provision, would justify the expulsion of a Member from the Blouse where 
his treasonable and criminal misconduct would show his unfitness for the 
public trust and duty of a Member of either House. (Tucker on the Constitu¬ 
tion, p. 429.) 

Cooley says: 

Each House has also power to punish Members for disorderly behavior and 
other contempts of its authority, as well as to expel a Member for any cause 
which seems to the body to render it unfit that he continue to occupy one of its 
seats. This power is generally enumerated in the Constitution among those 
which the two Houses may exercise, but it need not be specified in that instru¬ 
ment, since it would exist whether expressly conferred or not. It is “ a neces¬ 
sary and incidental power to enable the House to perform its high functions, 
and it is necessary to the safety of the State. It is a power of protection. A 
Member may be physically, mentally, or morally wholly unfit; he may be 
afflicted with a contagious disease or insane, or noisy, violent, and disorderly, 
or in the habit of using profane, obscene, and abusive language.” And, “ inde¬ 
pendently of parliamentary customs and usages, our legislative Houses may 
have the power to protect themselves by the punishment and expulsion of a 
Member,” and the courts can not inquire into the justice of the decision or 
even so much as examine the pi'oceedings to see whether or not the proper 
opportunity for defense was furnished, (Const. Lim., vol. I, p. 526.) 


52 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


LEADING CASES OF FAKLIAMENTAR V OFFENSES WHERE SPIIAKER PRO¬ 
NOUNCED CENSURE. 

Wood: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1247. 

Hunter: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1249. 

Brown: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1251. 

Bynum: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1259. 

LEADING CASES SHOWING ACTION BV 3IAJORITY OF THE SENATE OR HOUSE 

IN FAVOR OF EXPl LSION FOR MISCONDUCT INCONSISTENT WITH PUBLIC 

TRUST AND DUTY. 

Blount: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1263. 

Smith: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1264. 

Bright: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1269. 

Deweese: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1239. 

Whittemore: Hinds’ Precedents, volume’2, section 1273. 

Butler: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1274. 

Gilbert, Edwards, and Matteson: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, 
section 1275. 

Simmons: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1281. 

Ames and Brooks: Hinds’ Precedents, volume 2, section 1286. 

CONCLUSION. 

From the leading cases of the Senate and Parliament, from 
speeches of Members of Congress who were famed statesmen, from 
learned text writers on the Constitution, and from the precedents 
of the House cited approvingly by the whole committee, it is shown 
beyond any possible doubt that evidence is not required sufficient to 
convict in a court of law, but that the test is misconduct inconsistent 
with trust and duty. Thus, the resolution of expulsion in the case of 
William Blount fixed the standard as guilty of misconduct “ entirely 
inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator.” This 
language was followed 10 years later in the resolution of expulsion 
of Senator Smith, in the following language: Guilty of conduct 
“ incompatible with his duty and station as a Senator.” 

Attention is directed to the fact that the very resolution reported 
in this case by the majority of the committee condemns the conduct 
of Mr. McDermott upon this same high ground. This resolution 
finds him guilty “ of acts of impropriety incompatible with that 
high sense of honor and decorum which should characterize the con¬ 
duct of a Member of this House,’’ and guilty “ of acts of impropriety 
unbecoming the distinguished position he held.” This resolution 
twice condemns Mr. McDermott in language substantially identical 
with that employed in the cases which have been cited; but incon¬ 
sistently it does not provide for his expulsion. If his conduct merits 
such strong condemnation, is it logical to say that he is fit to con¬ 
tinue to occupy his seat in this HouseThe precedents of the 
Senate and of the House show that whenever Members have been 
guilty of conduct of which Mr. McDermott has been convicted by 
the committee, a majority always voted in favor of expulsion. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 53 


SECTIONS OF 


THE CRIMINAL CODE WHICH 


m'dER^IO'IT VIOLATED IN 


AND PERHAPS IN LEUrER. 


SPIRIT 


T. he statute Telating to hrihery. —Section 110 of the Criminal Code: 

Mlioe\ei, beiiii? elected or appointed a Member of or Deiejjcate to Congress, 
^ t^esLlent Commissioner, shall, after his election or api)ointment, and 
either before or after he has qnalilied, and during his continuance in ollice, 
(liiectly or indirectly, ask, accejit, receive, or agree to rec*eive, any money, 
property, or other valuable consideration, or any promise, contract, nndertak- 
ing, obligation, gratuity, or security for the payment of money or for the con¬ 
's eyance of anything of value to him or to any person with his consent, con- 
ni^ance, or concurrence, for his attention to, or services, or with the intent to 
have his action, vote, or decision influenced on any question, matter, cause, 
or proceeding, which may at any time be pending" in either House of Con¬ 
gress or before any committee thereof, or which l)y law or under the Constitu¬ 
tion may be brought before him in his official capacity, or in his place as 
such Member, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, shall be fined not more 
than three times the amount asked, accepted, or received, and imprisoned not 
more than three years; and shall, moreover, forfeit his office or jilace, and 
thereafter be forever disqualified from holding any office of honor, trust, or 
profit under the Government of the United States. 

Attention is called to the fact that under this section of the 
Criminal Code it is just as much an offense to “ask” for as to 
“receive’ a bribe. Nor need the bribe be in the form of money. 
Asking for or receiving “ any valuable consideration ” constitutes 
the offense. And it is equally an offense, whether the “ valuable 
consideration ” is sought or received for past “ services,’’ or with 
intent to influence a future vote. 

The statvte relating to evtortion. —Section 85 of the Criminal 
Code: 

Every officer, clerk, agent, or employee of the United States, and ev('ry i)erson 
representing himself to be or assuming to act as such officer, clerk, agent, or 
employee, who, under color of his office, clerkship, agency, oi‘ employment, or 
under color of his pretended or assumed office, clerkship, agency, or em])loyment. 
is guilty of extortion, and every person who shall attempt any act which if 
performed would make him guilty of extortion, shall be fined not more than five 
hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. 

That a Member of Congress is an “officer of the United States” 
was held by the select committee in the Ifoberts case (Hinds’ Prece¬ 
dents, vol. 1, No. 478). Attention is directed, also, to the fact that 
this section makes an attemjit at extortion equally criminal with 
successful extortion. As to what constitutes extortion, the definition 
given by Bouvier (Law Dictionary I, p. 636) is cited: 

The unlawful taking by an officer, by color of his office, of money or thing 
of value that is not due to him, or more than is due him. or before it is due. 

The statute prohibiting contributions by corporations for campaign 
purposes. —Section 83 of the Criminal Code, law of January 27, 1907: 

It shall be unlawful for any national bank or any cori)oration organized by author¬ 
ity of any law of Congress to make a money contribution in connection with any 
election to any political office. It shall also he unlawful for any corimration 
whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at 
which presidential and vice presidential electors or a Representative in Con¬ 
gress is to be voted for, or any election by any State legislature of a Thiited 
States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in vio¬ 
lation of the foregoing provisions shall be fined not more than five thousand dol¬ 
lars; and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any 


54 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


contribution from the corporation, in violation of the foregoing' provisions, shall 
be fined not more than one thousand dollars or imprisoned not more than one 
year, or both. 

In connection with this statute, attention is directed to section 332 
of the Criminal Code, reading as follows : 

Whoever directly commits any act constituting an offense defined in any law 
of the United States, or aids, abets, counsels, commands, induces, or procures 
its commission is a principal. 

This section makes it clear that a candidate for a seat in Congress 
who solicits or receives contributions to his campaign fund from 
corporations is as guilty of a violation of the law as are the corpora¬ 
tions which make contributions. 

TESTIMONY RELATING TO THE MISCONDUCT OF REPRESENTATIVE m’dER- 

MOin’ AS BROUGHT OUT IN THE HEARINGS BEIT)RE THE SEI.ECT COM- 

MIT^rEE.^ 

The select committee appointed under House resolution 198 did 
not primarily inquire into the fitness of Representative McDermott 
to continue to hold his seat in this House. Its inquiry was directed 
mainly to determining whether the National Association of Manu¬ 
facturers had corruptly influenced legislation. Yet in the 3,000 
pages of testimony taken by the select committee there is abundant 
evidence showing how utterly inconsistent Representative McDer¬ 
mott’s conduct has been with public trust and duty. And this 
is the only question properly before this House. We are not sitting 
as a jury to try Mr. McDermott upon the charge of crime. If the 
House were a jury to try Mr. McDermott for crime, the writer 
and other Members would be willing to meet the issue that Mr. 
McDermott has been guilty of a violation of the statute relating 
to bribery and of that prohibiting contributions for campaign pur¬ 
poses by corporations. But under the precedents of the House the 
issue is not whether Mr. McDermott be shown beyond a reasonable 
doubt to have been guilty of crime, but whether his conduct has been 
inconsistent with his high trust. When this issue is met squarely 
there can be no question that Mr. McDermott is morally so wholly 
unfit and unworthy that he should forthwith be expelled from his 
seat in the House. 

MR. m’dERMOTt’s ALIAIGED IX)AN FROM THE FEDERATION OF LIQl OR DEAL¬ 
ERS OF THE DISTRICT OF COI.UMBIA. 

In September, 1912, Mr. McDermott came to Washington to borrow 
$500 from the pawnbroker, George Hornhig. Failing to get the 
money from Horning, Mr. ^IcDermott did borrow $500 from the 
PYderation of Liquor Dealers of the District of Columbia (p. 118G). 
This loan was negotiated through George Harvey, secretary of the 
Federation of Liquor Dealers of the District of Columbia. Harvey 
consulted four other officers of the executive committee of this federa¬ 
tion, who approved the loan. This $500 loan was made to Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott in cash upon an unsecured note bearing 6 per cent interest, 
payable in three months. This note had not been paid by August, 


1 All references, unless otherwise indicated, are to the published hearin;?s before the 
select committee. 



CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 55 


1913 (11 months after this transaction), and no serious effort had 
been made by the Federation of Liquor Dealers to collect the same. 

At the time when Mr. McDermott made this $500 loan from the 
Federation of Liquor Dealers this organization had in its treasury 
a large special fund created to defeat the Jones-Works bill pending 
before Congress (Keport of select committee, p. 11). Whether the 
$500 loan to Mr. McDennott came out of this special fund does not 
clearly appear, but no claim was made by any witness that it did not, 
and certainly it came out of the treasury of the Federation of Liquor 
Dealers. 

As to this loan, Harvey, the man through him it was negotiated, 
testified (p. 1186) : 

It was entirely apiiiist my grain, and against wlial I liad thought should 
ever be done, but in this case he seemeil desperate. 

Harvey further testified that the other four members of the ex¬ 
ecutive committee of the Federation of Liquor Dealers who approved 
the loan did not “like the idea '' (p. 1196). The Federation of Liq¬ 
uor Dealers never made any loan to any other Member of Congress, 
or, in fact, to anybod}^ else (p. 1191). In spite of the unusual char¬ 
acter of this loan, neither Harvey nor the four members of the ex¬ 
ecutive committee of the Federation of Liquor Dealers who approved 
the loan asked Mr. McDermott any questions as to why he had to come 
all the way from Chicago to raise this loan, and why he could not 
get the money among his own people in Chicago (pp. 1194, 1196). 

The reason why this loan was made to Mr. McDermott under these 
unusual circumstances appears pretty clearly from the following 
extract from the hearings before the select committee (p. 1193) : 

Mr. Ki ssELL. You would not have loaned $500 to him if you understand he 
was unfriendly to you, would youV 

Mr. Harvey. That would not be a natural transaction; but I do not know 
what have iH^en done under the circumstances with a man as distressed as he 
appeared to be. 

When this transaction of Mr. McDermott with the Federation of 
Liquor Dealers of the District of Columbia is viewed in the light of 
common sense, there is no escaping from the conclusion that Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott'did get a large financial favor from the liquor dealers while 
they were vitally interested in pending legislation. He did, in fact, 
vote for the less drastic substitute of the District Committee for the 
Jones-AYorks bill. But whether this financial favor was extended to 
Mr. ^IcDermott to influence his vote upon the Jones-AVorks bill, or 
because his previous record showed that he invariably A’oted with the 
liquor interests, is immaterial. AA^hether a Member of Congress re¬ 
ceives payment for past services, or payment for a future vote, he is 
equally unfit for his high position. And in this case it is difficult to 
see how Mr. McDermott can escape from the statute relating to 
bribery on the one hand and from the statute relating to extortion on 
the other. But irrespective of Avhether a jury would convict or ac¬ 
quit ^Ir. McDermott of these crimes, under our oath of office can 
we say that he is morally fit to continue to occupy his seat in 
Congress ? 

MR. m’dERMOTT’s RELATIONS WITH THE PAAVNBROKERS. 

AAdiile there is much that is disputed in all of the transactions 
of Mr. ^fcDermott with the pawnbrokers and loan sharks, when the 


56 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

cumulative testimony is considered, the weight of the evidence is 
conclusive, that he did receive money and credit, at least in part, by 
virtue of his being a Member of Congress. While soliciting money 
and credit he had full knowledge that pawnbrokers were vitally 
interested in legislation pending before Congress and that they had 
raised a large fund in relation thereto. 

The special committee found (report, p. 12) that in the spring 
of 1911 the pawnbroker and not broker, George A. Horning, did 
raise a fund of at least $8,000 from the note brokers of the District 
of Columbia to defeat the Dyer loan-shark bill. Somewhat later 
the three paAvnbrokers, Horning, Heidenheimer, and Burnstine, 
raised another fund of $3,700 in reference to this bill. (Report, 
p. 13.) Horning kept no books as to either of these lobby funds. 

McMichael testified that Mr. McDermott on several occasions, 
after the loan-shark bill had become law, told him that he had 
gotten $7,500 out of the fund the loan sharks had raised (p. 492). 

Aside from this testimony, there is ample evidence that Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott did get money and credit from the pawnbrokers who had 
raised the lobby fund, under circumstances that strongly suggest 
that he solicited and received the money because he was a Member of 
Congress. It is admitted that Mr. McDermott borrowed large sums 
of money at various times from George Horning, the man who raised 
both lobby funds. Horning testified (p. 765) that the total of these 
loans to Mr. McDermott was $1,085. But while he was positive that 
the total Avas exactly $1,085, he could give definite information about 
only one of the sums constituting this total—an item of $85 (p. 912). 
All of these loans to Mr. McDermott by Horning Avere made without 
his giving any note therefor and Avithout interest. Horning noAvhere 
made any memorandum about these loans. The major portion of 
these loans, Mr. McDermott testified (p. 1594), Avere made when 
he was interested in the aeroplane A^nture; in other Avords, in 
the summer of 1911, Avhen Horning Avas raising and expending the 
big lobby funds referred to. Horning and Mr. McDermott claimed 
that these loans Avere entirely personal, and had no relation to the 
lobby funds. But as to the reliability of Horning’s testimony, the 
characterization of all the paAvnbroker Avitnesses by the special com¬ 
mittee must be borne in mind: 

All of tliese were rolnctnnt and nnwilliii^ witnesses. It was with great dif¬ 
ficulty that they could be brought to relate the most simple facts, and their man¬ 
ner and appearance while testifying were such as to create a distinctly un¬ 
pleasant and unfavorable inpu’ession upon the committee. (Report, p. 12.) 

^Ir. McDermott undoubtedly kneAv from Horning that the loan 
sharks had raised a large fund. McMichael testified that Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott constantly referred to this fund. Aside from this, it is un¬ 
disputed that Horning frequently spoke to Mr. McDermott about the 
loan-shark bill, and Avas frequently in Horning’s company. Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott’s OAvn testimony sIioavs that most of the loans of Horning to 
Mr. McDermott were made just after the lobby funds had been 
raised. Under these circumstances it seems probable that Mr. McDer¬ 
mott made these extraordinary demands for money upon Horning at 
this time, knoAving that Horning had a large lobby fund to expend. 
The fact that no memorandum Avas kept about these loans strengthens 
the view that, if Mr. McDermott did not get these loans out of the 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND I.OBBY ACTIVITIES. 57 

lobby funds, he solicited these loans because he knew Morning had 
raised these lobby funds. 

McMichael testified that aside from these admitted loans by Horn¬ 
ing to Mr. McDermott, Horning gave financial favors to-Mc^Iichael 
because of the solicitation of Mr. ^IcDermott. He testified (pp. 490, 
644) that on one occasion after the introduction of the loan-shark bill 
he secured a loan of $50 from Horning to meet a request from Mr. 
McDermott to send him $125. To secure this $50 loan McMichael 
pawned his jewelry. When Mr. iMcDerniott returned to M'ashington 
he gave McMichael a note to Horning reading, “ Geo., give Me his 
jewelry.” Horning did give McMichael his jewelry, and made him 
sign a receipt to the effect: ‘‘ Received from George Horning $50, for 
service rendered.” Horning and Mr. McDermott, naturally, do not 
admit the correctness of this testimony by McMichael. But in sev¬ 
eral respects Horning coiToborates McMichael. He testified (p. 816) 
that he remembers that he did loan $50 to McMichael upon a 
note for which he deposited his jewelry after McMichael had shown 
him a telegram or letter from Mr. McDermott to the effect that Mc¬ 
Michael should raise $125 for Mr. McDennott. But Horning could 
not remember anything about this note being ever paid or whether 
the jewelry was ever gotten out of pawn. McMichael exhibited the 
jewelry to the special committee, and Horning never produced the 
$50 note, which he must still have held if it was not redeemed. Horn¬ 
ing, moreover, admitted that on one occasion he made McMichael 
give him a receipt for $50 paid him for service rendered.” He 
claimed that this $50 was paid to McMichael for a trip to New York 
in the interests of the pawnbrokers; but he could not explain what 
McMichael did in New York for the pawnbrokers (p. 814), nor could 
he definitely remember whether the $50 paid to McMichael was paid 
in cash or through cancellation of a note (p. 817). In view of Horn¬ 
ing’s hazy recollections upon this transaction, the weight of evidence 
is in'favor of the McMichael version of the story. 

Mr. McDermott also received financial favors from Heidenheimer 
while the loan-shark bill was pending. According to Heidenheimer’s 
testimony, he did not meet Mr. McDermott until introduced to him 
by Horning when the loan-shark bill was pending (p. 667). He met 
him thereafter only on a very few occasions. Mr. McDermott never 
liad any regular business transactions with Heidenheimer (p. 666). Yet 
it is admitted by both Heidenheimer and by Mr. McDermott that on 
several occasions Heidenheimer cashed Mr. McDermott’s clerk-hire 
checks in the middle of the month, before they were due, without 
charging any interest for holding them two weeks or more (pp. 673, 
1619). According to Mr. McDermott’s own testimony, this happened at 
least four or five times (p. 1635). On one occasion Mr. McDermott in 
person came to Heidenheimer’s place of business to cash the clerk- 
hire check in advance of the time when it was due (p. 673). Heiden¬ 
heimer never cashed a check for any other Member of Congress, much 
less two weeks in advance of the" time when it could be redeemed 
(p. 674). It is not in evidence that Mr. McDermott cashed his clerk- 
hire checks in advance of the time when they were due anywhere 
except with Heidenheimer, a pawnbroker, whose regular interest 
charge was 3 per cent per month and above. It is evident that this 


58 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

accommodation and financial favor to Mr. McDermott was extended 
to him because he was a Member of Congress, and at the time when 
the loan-shark bill was pending, to defeat which Heidenheimer had 
made a large contribution to the lobby fund. 

There is also a proven transaction occurring while the loan-shark 
bill was pending, in which Heidenheimer allowed McMichael to re¬ 
cover jewelry pawned as security for a note without paying the inter¬ 
est due thereon, amounting to $14 to $18. McMichael testified (p. 492) 
that this favor was extended to him by Heidenheimer after Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott had in person gone to Heidenheimer’s place of business and 
had asked that the debt be canceled. Heidenheimer refused to do 
this, but let the interest go. Heidenheimer admitted that he let 
McMichael have his jewelry without paying any interest, but could 
not remember whether McMichael or Mr. McDermott asked him for 
this favor (p. 666). In view of the fact that ^Ir. McDermott appear.^ 
to have been in Heidenheimer’s place of business only on one other 
occasion, it is pretty clear that it must have been Mr, McDermott who 
asked Heidenheimer to let McMichael have his jewelry without pay¬ 
ing any interest on his note. Heidenheimer testified that he let the 
interest go, because McMichael was a good customer (p. 667). If 
this was true, it is difficult to understand why McDermott, and not 
McMichael, made the call upon Heidenheimer to get the interest 
remitted. It is quite clear that in this transaction McDermott got a 
financial favor for a friend from a pawnbroker he didn’t know very 
well because he was a Member of Congress and had a vote upon the 
loan-shark bill, in which the pawnbroker was most vitally interested. 

It is a matter of record that when the loan-shark bill did come up 
in the House Mr. McDermott voted for the substitutes which the 
pawnbrokers were favoring. The only other service which he 
appears to have rendered to the pawnbrokers was in connection 
with a trip to New York in April, 1911. It is undisputed that 
on that occasion Horning, Congressman McDermott, and McMichael 
all happened to be together at the same time in the New York 
office of ,Iohn A. McDermott, of the United States Brewers’ Asso¬ 
ciation. Horning and John A. McDermott admit that on that 
occasion the former asked the latter for letters of introduction to 
Tammany politicians and for his help upon the loan-shark bill 
(pp. 767, 1644). Except Congressman McDermott, none of the wit¬ 
nesses denied that Congressman McDermott was present when Plorn- 
ing solicited the aid of John A. McDermott to secure support from 
Tammany for the pawnbrokers. As to how it happened that Con¬ 
gressman McDermott. Horning, and McMichael all were together 
at that time in the office of John A, McDermott there is somewhat 
contradictory testin^ony. Horning testified that he met Congress 
man McDermott and McMichael before this and asked them to go 
with him to the office of John A. McDermott (p. 761). Horning 
was not e\'en positive that the three had not gone together to New 
York from Washington or that this was not the occasion when he 
allowed McMichael $50 for making a trip to New York in the in¬ 
terests of the loan sharks (p. 814). John A. McDermott thought 
that on this occasion Horning arrived at his office in advance of the 
others. He had some recollection, however, that Horning told him 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 59 


when he arrived that Congressman McDermott would be along later, 
as appears from the following extract from the hearings before the 
special committee (p. 1761) : 

Mr. Russell. You say that when Mr, Horning came into your office he said 
he thought that Jim McDermott would he there? 

Mr. McDermott. When I asked him about Jim it seems to me he did say 
that, but I could not swear about that. The fact of the matter was that 1 
paid little attention to the whole thing. 

In view of this testimony by Horning and John A. McDermott it 
must be taken as established that the presence of Congressman Mc- 
Derirott in the office of John A. McDermott when Horning asked 
John A. McDermott to aid him in securing Tammany help for the 
loan sharks was not accidental, but prearranged between Horning 
and Congressman McDermott. If this was a prearranged meeting, 
this affair assumes the appearance of being one of the services ren¬ 
dered by Congressman McDermott to the pawnbrokers for which he 
was receiving the financial favors which have been set forth in this 
statement. 

MR. 'SI DERMOIt's 'I'lfANSACTIONS WITH THE IMTEl) STATES liREWERS’ 

ASSOmATION. 

Mulhall testified (p. 1130) that C'ongressmaii McDermott, John 
A. McDermott, of the United States Brewers’ Association. Fleming, 
brother-in-law of Congressman McDermott, and McMichael all told 
him that in 1900 Congressman McDermott was promised $5,000 by 
the United States Brewers’ As.sociation for his vote in support of 
Cannon in the rules fight of that year. He further testified that 
Congressman McDermott told him that he did, at Philadelphia, re¬ 
ceive $2,000 of the $5,000 promised. 

It is a matter of record that in the rules fight of 1909 McDermott 
was one of 23 Democrats voting with the Cannon Republicans. 
During that fight the brewers’ lobby was active in support of Can- 
nonisrn. While no definite conclusions can be drawn as to this testi¬ 
mony of Mulhall, support is given to its ])robable truthfulness by the 
proven contribution of John A. McDermott to Congressman McDer¬ 
mott’s campaign fund in 1912. It is to be regretted that McMichael 
was not asked anything about this transaction in 1909. 

Some time in March, 1912, Congressman McDermott, upon meeting 
John A. McDermott in Chicago, asked the latter for a campaign 
contribution to aid him in his primary fight. This is testified to by 
both McDermotts (pp. 1600, 1743). Congressman McDermott quotes 
John A. McDeiinott as having replied to this request, 'AYe never 
give anybody any money” (p. 1600). The “we’* referred to was 
tbe United States Brewers’ Association. This testimony by Con¬ 
gressman ^McDermott makes it clear that he expected to get a cam¬ 
paign contribution from the United States Brewers’ Association. 
Perhaps he looked upon it as another installment of the $5,000 prom¬ 
ised in 1909. That Congressman McDermott was seeking a campaign 
contribution from the brewers’ association for his primary cam¬ 
paign in 1912 is brought out. also, by the following extract from a 


60 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


letter of McMichael to JVIulliall, dated February 12, 1912 (given in 
full, p. 478) : 

I Jia\o liad a loiij; talk with Ma.. and from what 1 can nnderstand we can get 
the money to go to Chicago from him, as he is going to New York and see McD. 
over there, and on his return we will be all right. 

It is admitted W John A, McDermott, also, that Mulhall called 
upon him at his office in New York about the middle of March and 
asked for a contribution to Congressman McDermott's campaign fund 
by the United States Brewers’ Association (p. 1747). 

A $500 campaign contribution was actually made by John A. Mc¬ 
Dermott to the fund of Congressman McDermott on the day of the 
primary, April 8, 1912. This money was delivered in cash to Con¬ 
gressman McDei-mott by one Deitrich, an employee of the United 
States Brewers' Association living in Chicago. This contribution 
Congressman McDermott included in his sworn statement filed with 
the Clerk of the House after the primary, crediting it to John A. 
McDermott personally (p. 1342). 

John A. McDermott insists that this was in fact a personal con¬ 
tribution (p. 1747). He was not related to Congressman AIcDermott 
and did not live in his district. He made no contribution to a cam- 
])aigii fund on any other occasion (p. 1751). The only reason as¬ 
signed by Congressman McDermott for this contribution to his cam¬ 
paign fund by John xV. McDermott was that they were close personal 
friends, their ancestors coming from the same county in Ireland. 

John A. McDermott, however, admitted that he did probably talk 
over the $500 contribution to the campaign fund of Congressman 
McDermott after the primary—which took place on the day the con¬ 
tribution was made—with the other officers of the Brewers’ Asso¬ 
ciation. (1755.) It is difficult to understand why he should talk 
over this contribution with the other officers if he did not in fact 
charge it to the association. John xV. McDermott further admitted 
that he collects his allowances for traveling expenses, amounting to 
$6,000 to $7,000 per year, and for incidental expenses, amounting to 
$200 to $300 per month, without rendering any itemized statement 
to the brewers’ association (pp. 1752, 1754). The select committee, 
moreover, did not require the production of the books of the brewers’ 
association: nor was Deitrich, the man who brought the contribution 
to Congressman McDermott, put upon the stand. 

But regardless of whether or not the contribution credited to Johii 
A. McDermott was in fact made bv the United States Brewers’ Asso- 
sociation. the testimony of Congressman McDermott himself proves 
beyond the shadow of a doubt that he did prior to the primary cam¬ 
paign of 1912 ask John A. AIcDermott to arrange for a contribution 
by the brewers’ association to his campaign fund. A statute passed 
by Congress while Congressman McDermott Avas a Member makes 
such contributions by corporations a misdemeanor. In soliciting 
funds from the brewers, Avho are constantly interested in legislation 
pending before Congress, Congressman McDermott, moreover, came 
dangerously near to violating the statute relating to bribery, if he 
did not in fact do so. 

AIR. Ai’deRAIOIt's ALLEGED LOANS FROAI AIULHALL. 

In the account published in the New York "VYorld and in the Chi¬ 
cago Tribune, ^lulhall stated that the loans he made to McDermott 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 61 


totaled $1,500 to $2,000. In his testiniony before the select com¬ 
mittee ^lulhall gave $800 to $900 as his estimate of the total of his 
loans to McDermott (p. 1362). According to Midhall, Mr. McDer¬ 
mott borrowed money from him whenever they were together at 
Fritz Keiiter’s. On one occasion he gave Mr. McDermott $65 and 
followed it up with $35 on the next day (p. 1004). At another time, 
Mulhall testified, McDermott snatched $36 out of his hand while 
standing in front of the bar in the Fritz Keuter Hotel (p. 1005). 
MclMichael testified that while he never saw any actual money passed 
from iMulhall to McDermott, he observed that while Mr. ^IcDermott 
went into the Fritz Reuter place without money, he always came out 
with money (pp. 431, 432). 

Upon the loans of Mr. McDermott from Mulhall the select com¬ 
mittee found (Kept., p. 61) : 

We think, too. that the weight of the testimony is that Mr. McDermott did 
obtain occasional snms of money from Mulhall in the way of small loans when 
they were together, bnt the testimony convinces ns that these were personal 
acts of Mulhall, and we do not believe that he let McDermott have this money 
with a view of corrupting him. 

The select committee found that Mr. McDermott made loans from 
Mulhall, and there is no proof, or even any claim, that any of these 
loans were evei‘ repaid. What was the total of these loans is of little 
importance. Guilt or innocence does not depend upon the number of 
corrupt transactions. 

Nor does it seem to me that the character of these loans is mate¬ 
rially changed because they came mainly out of Mulhall’s pocket and 
were not charged to the National Association of Manufacturers. 
McDermott knew that Mulhall was the lobbyist of the National 
Association of Manufacturers. None of the loans he made from 
Mulhall appear ever to have been repaid. To borrow money from a 
lobbyist and to fail to repay the sums borrowed is just as much proof 
of unfaithfulness to trust and duty as is the borrowing of money 
from a lobby fund. 

It is clearly established, moreover, that Mulhall did at various 
times charge the national association with the expenses of enter¬ 
taining Congressman McDermott. The following items appear in the 
expense accounts rendered by Mulhall to the National Association of 
Manufacturers, for which he was reimbursed by that association: 

December, 1910. Supper for self, I. H. McMicliael, Congressman James A. Mc¬ 
Dermott.'and others at Fritz Reuter Hotel, $8. 

May 11. 1911. Dinner for self and Congressman McDermott and friends at 

hotel, $4. 

May 25, 1911. For entertaining McDermott from 8 p. m. to 1 a. m., $6. 

McMichael testified that Mr. McDermott regularly shared in the 
$50 salary per month McMichael was receiving from the National 
Manufacturers’ Association (pp. 422, 423). He further testified that 
on several occasions Mr. ^IcDermott asked Mulhall to increase the 
pay of ^IcMichael, so that he could receive a larger share thereof 
(pp. 516, 517). The select committee found (Kept., p. 61) that it 
is probable that Mr. McDermott did at various times make loans 
from McMichael, knowing that the sums borrowed came from the $50 
per month McMichael was receiving from the National Association 
of Manufacturers. It expressed its belief, however, that this was 
not a regular occurrence. This, however, is immaterial. The char¬ 
acter of the act is not changed by the frequency of its occurrence. 



62 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

MR. m’dreaeoit’s solicitation of funds from members of the 

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MANUFACTURERS FOR HIS AEROPLANE 

VENTURE. 

In July, 1911, Mr. McDermott went to the office of J. P. Bird, gen¬ 
eral manager of the National Association of Manufacturers, in New 
York and presented the following letter of introduction from Mul- 
hall (pp. 1120, 1473) : 

Washington, D. C.. July Jl, 1911. 

Mr. J. P. Bird, 

General Manayer National Association of Manufacturers, 

SO Church Street, New York City. 

My Dear Bird : TMs letter will introduce you to one of the very best friends 
we have in Washington, Mr. James T. McDermott, a Member from the fourth 
congressional district in Illinois. 

I know it is not necessary to call your attention to the many good things I 
have said in my letters concerning Mr. McDermott to you, for if it was not for 
the splendid assistance he has given us on many occasions we would have found 
ourselves traveling over a very rough road here in Washington. 

Mr, McDermott is greatly interested in a patent which lie wishes to call to 
your attention, and which I know he will fully explain to you when he hands 
you this letter. I will take it as the greatest favor which you can bestow if 
you will aid him in any way you can along that line. 

So hoping to hear that you have had a very pleasant chat and interview with 
Mr. McDermott, believe me, as ever, 

Faithfully, yours. 

After presentation of this letter. Bird testified (p. 1473), Mc¬ 
Dermott asked Bird to extend to him $6,000 to $8,000 credit to buy 
engines for the aeroplane, which was being built at Bridgeport by a 
firm in which Mr. McDermott was interested. 

It is Mr. McDermott’s claim that he did not know the contents of 
this letter, as McMichael got it from Mulhall for him, and it was 
handed to him in a sealed envelope. Yet he admits (p. 1581) that 
he and McMichael had discussed the possibilities of raising $3,000 
to $4,000 through a letter of introduction he was to get from Mul¬ 
hall. He admits, moreover, that McMichael said, when he handed him 
the sealed envelope: “ The Colonel recommended you most highly.” 
Also, “I had a general idea” (of what the letter contained) “Mc¬ 
Michael told me it was a good strong letter” (p. 1682). Mulhall 
testified that Mr. McDermott asked him for the letter of introduction 
to Bird, and told him to play up Mr. McDermott’s services to the 
Manufacturers’ Association as strongly as possible. Inasmuch as 
Mr. McDermott admits that he talked over with McMichael the 
possibilities of raising $3,000 to $4,000 through a letter of introduc¬ 
tion from Mulhall, the weight of evidence is that Mr. McDermott did 
know that the letter he carried to Bird was a testimonial to his 
services to the Manufacturers’ Association. Moreover, Bird is not 
entirely certain whether the letter Mr. McDermott carried Avas sealed 
or unsealed (p. 1473). 

Further proof that Mr. McDermott was a party to a scheme to 
raise a large sum of money on the plea of his services as a Member 
of Congress to the Manufacturers’ Association is furnished by the 
following telegram, received by Mulhall in Washington July 19, 
1911, the day after Mr. McDermott saw Bird in New York (p. 1121) : 

Absolutely necessary you come to Bridgeport immediately. Get your Bridge¬ 
port addresses in New York from Mr. B. Try and leave to-night, if possible. 
Answer Stratfield. 


James T. 


CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 63 

Ihis telegram was sent from Bridgeport, Conn., to which place Mr, 
McDermott, accompanied by McMichael, had admittedly gone from 
New York. Mr. McDermott did not remember sending this tele^ 
gram, but McMichael testified he was present when it was sent. It 
clearly meant that Mulhall should come to Bridgeport, Conn., to 
assist Mr. McDermott in raising funds for the aeroplane, and on his 
way up should stop in New York to get a list of the members of the 
National Association of Manufacturers in the neighborhood of 
Bridgeport from General Manager Bird. The plan was that the 
members of the National Association of Manufacturers should be 
canvassed for Mr. McDermott’s aeroplane venture by the chief lob¬ 
byist of the association, Mulhall. 

These transactions of Mr. McDermott with the National Associa¬ 
tion of Manufacturers were certainly inconsistent with trust and 
duty. Very probably they render him liable, also, to indictment 
under the statute relating to bribery. But even if he could not be 
shown beyond reasonable doubt to have solicited payment for his 
services to the Manufacturers’ Association, there can be no question 
but that his conduct in this instance proves his utter unfitness for the 
high position he occupies. 

mulhall’s collecting campaign funds for m’dermott in the lat¬ 
ter’s PRIMARY CAMPAIGN OF 1912. 

McMichael and Mulhall testified before the select committee that 
during the winter of 1912 they met with Mr. McDermott in Boom 29 
of the Capitol (this is the Mulhall room) and discussed a plan of hav¬ 
ing Mulhall go to Chicago to raise $6,000 from the manufacturers of 
Mr. McDermott’s district (p. 457). 

Mulhall did actually arrive in Chicago on March 28, 1912. Prior 
to that date George Fleming, the brother-in-law and campaign man¬ 
ager of Mr. McDermott, testified no effort had been made by Mr. Mc¬ 
Dermott to raise any campaign funds from the manufacturers of his 
district (p. 1557). He testified, also, that in the campaign of 1910 
Mr. McDermott did not receive any contributions from any manu¬ 
facturer of his district except Tilden, of the packers, who did not 
contribute in 1912 (p. 1548). 

Mulhall was in Chicago until April 8. (Report of select commit¬ 
tee, p. 63.) During this time he admittedly canvassed, in company 
either of Mr. McDermott or of Fleming, various manufacturers of 
the district to raise funds for Mr. McDermott. Mulhall inserted in 
the hearings before the select committee two lists of the firms visited 
(pp. 1127, 1139). Mr. McDermott admitted that most of the names 
on these lists were in his handwriting (p. 1608). He stated that he 
prepared these lists from the telephone directory after Mulhall ar¬ 
rived in Chicago. Mulhall testified that these lists were prepared in 
the office of Job, attorney for the Employers’ Association of Chicago, 
who furnished a list of the members of that association, from which 
Mr. McDermott copied the names of the manufacturers in his dis¬ 
trict. Mr. McDermott admitted that he was twice in the office of 
Job with Mulhall (p. 1609). 

Mulhall gave a detailed account of his calls upon manufacturers 
in Mr. McDermott’s district, and of the amounts they were induced 
to contribute. The amounts given by him account for each and every 



:.±.^r3s ..jst * jsst jic!znn^ 


!.•€ 

-tinr^mrrrun ^hj^l 5Cr lit^«K!!iiiic; la. iCi rCKJSuifai: s* 

■fiit 'CTitcx ic ::iti 3 »T:=^_ iiit •^ mcH VgpriT ^ ^skn: JL- 

nf ntt A^-^isiiniL MiOLtr rii i g in. 

-fitt-^ Trm^ ist li^T^4^ tiiinffay^^ Tcwn. ;S** 

Mr. 38;iItemstGi" imE renos:^? i:s x Msmi^er xc C'EUCTaE s* 
nut 5«D riJSL A-^i r^>«~» nT nf ZZT-^ r^ 

-fTm*- ^ aew-^ ^ if jhor^&itEir'In "icrr^L ^.hl pTfti'Vr-* 

«nr 4>iir i^atSi^JfemiiiLtiii^- 3ftr M^fErrm.Tz: otZ tfn:n^ r^tianfia 
’’Smi *r rit? j~^ .w g' T ^» Tr^ m s^ r^-izr^z Lrd ^ 

tUtsF ^^sS^rrr muz r"^ *E '^"IL ’irwirf tf 

^fnnrniTn nr* ii zit-^ -nnir rr^ ”T»2f?*a.n: rnii 

^rsnflrr T-^rru^ n V^~ £r ii i«e -vUIziir r miriiaiifr 

amir T( ~ fuuL. lfcA^*;^nLi‘»^ ~mij£ aLJx liSar 

Tfarr t»^ uJVI'te ^T^^-JTl Jir 7# riMcrgp-^ i£ "W^rcn tiT t 

jiiif?r!S5' rmnn^ in tl ^ nr*-? Titt f»3 

TTtnr i«f ^ggn: i rro^ ic :^^~P >*3! 74- xlI ::jj* 

jumrr?^ ni its T-r ' !■ ■ : ji 2.^i5L zi^ar. 3J- 

ar^orriE jir 1. ■^ anrgi imiH in. 2H^ vml nimt ir lOit riamrrs-r^Trsr^ 
'■’fUEzrjrmT^'r 36r 3fcr*eniiii:r“r ruTi.zm.^ fimi xl ZKii. 
Tit- TTar MilLduL. -stii iiiax rir^ Inrc^pH: id 

^scamxiL 3.^i»asiigL in MaiiAfg^rr^r^ this ^ iiii^ xt 3-in?^ 
Ila^ g- Tii-r rirrxR— ^tg xmi^ ~Tar Mr MT^smitr: nrr»!friii-2 

ul tih- irr^a^3_ i£ iih iefr^a*-=^ 1: 3ljt MitLOt^^airBBS 
- r=s i^*;aain ji. < Tif^ riirfi*^ fiin ^jt rHarrj xT "SiK: ’v^sri 

'3r~r 3ir xxm^ a&rerir in mr^ niEmrii T Tr^g - r:. rir .~lr^nrT^> 

rrr^rzn^ HiS 'nsi". Zx :3is i^r n Mr MoL^srmraet 

i rerrlL " •- Mr lU llCT IIL lltt: if US fir 1 

nrrers: n *3‘nugr'^— ^riTy* . if*^iir xi i TaTtaoTix in 12c Hunci 

xgsiTiir: uru^rx. Tm xaF? 'rjninsSKi- rrigr 

MnlraiT ffioxi ri^ s uniti ujim^ s& Mr. MrO^mnrr Sife* 

BTC Ife jrnic hix iui rsraau 

Ins ir'f^rurrTTii if xml’s fir Mr. M^^rxi.rfx X!nnar 7 
^ MifriiiT '"sx -»:agr i xnf kru r tL ^ aonx rf xni: u. isr^ if m*?: 
aiHTinx aA x: xiiis Mr-M'T ^rnuir^ ▼!& x Menni?r -tf CrmEr*a-xcT^ 
^TTOTmg' laiinrTi'iraias ii rmiuaijEL xiniffi ic rmimmns fir , aijx*s^ 
;nF;3#tpTarafc- -xan? istk td^»i f£: T^iT pm 

nzSf-5^feD'> jn 12 jTT3IJV^ 

1* ft IS xaiuEvrjm^ sun 'inoia. ^'r i rm i^iru^ Mt®lx:iT v lii “vi rKk- 
*•»« f w- rfOT-rdMCJiK. iiiii; * *rirz*isu^iia^ •sw*- 

aritnntr ^snMuni fuxfi, \'^ irni ri^ cs«% 

Tr “h#!: rD (>r:r^ sasC ^-icnTti 3Er MvZJsauins;* ▼ts Ms^ i- 
'"tTr^idg^ai, Tur r^finrnnniex xu^ nc5«rK3UL «?> 

»iiji rii^ liiiJ^«CTiii •3iiij;;rn#iiiftj£ ir^ ^ riti f^’v-nrrii^ 

^n^m mmf iflK. M.Jfi wtufT" ^-muS 

immL JfeJl^sTxwar: Tiair-^i <5aH2^ w*rf ^ jbflVKSstfifoi____ 

X. Z J&^^rEirat ns^raamupr Im^fnacMai £arv«s«r f>i. ___^ 

£ ft: >iH. «fi?^3icden: 4 Ofe.__ 

■1 2!. liOK 25^ J*. .- _ __ ^ _ Jt^ 

2. X»5»r jtJittri’:ai. Fwwwtx -IX__ ^ 

^ 23fcr>^’ <^3^. - ^ ^ 

X«*isu35*: ?jerr ^^aswn l«-te & <^ii«sau«i ^ _ j» 

i -rr--^'rr jt. 56’ r.^rxn‘rtL t-r 

itnutj*;'! crt-jLiTi*^ '^i»>fir "Mli'4riBUl.jveij» ir <«*: 




































'3«r5nMil^ nr jr - -z^Tscixfi:^ ^«znraL 
^UBwjTti! ' ' Mt JR ^iggiL IzL Hi^ -afc^- Ife WKT »g^Ta^?^ -w-r? 
1^ HE ^n jf Tic jp^ 

umiTn- riTT#TrMi£a& ^!iiiL ^ aL - »! g ' » ~ ‘i u Tie 

* ir 2» 3s& ir iOBssiJK: 

ir atcrg^csi. tt i frcm^ 

^r^i mt Ti TH** *simKS -jfflrinKi* IS? ±^«i 

MnnncniES 3F 5r ti tt jtLiuj** 11 = jr ^ 


1^ ICt-r ^^-ninr ^"[^1 TEc TTilMIIli TE3~I^5- 

i«?' s5aEr T^jj** - ?'±iiiimL Tie -' ^ ‘ Tg -n-dgw ic 
y g - a iT r - t ^F l^r IS^fETJUicr S: TSW. *t±.n^ '^^td-^ t? job. 

4^ TT^ -“snEiTT**^ T?»imr t. ^ hisl Jtmlxitr 

Ifc lR^ R»^tTrr ? ~^n,T jl TT«Trm^ ?jMie inir mnssissB T» 

n&^V^ if HE ' ^ir-tTfrarT ^.^iSMTillL if ^Min 

IfesZ^Enunz: ts^ rn.~ * ^gnaiT t»e^ it its ml*''v::5ffi35 

TTT* HE Ta’^^THm IE TIE JL ^=^TTT^ iTT- !7 TT IP 

Xr «r: jih *t-r^ iirg jp 

“k TL:5e -rTTinffo rr Tte T anMfe. rie T^iik 

ifcifH: fg-^nnirr ^ihnUS TBK JlP ^BOE TIrr liaKTlflr--31~-j;^^ TjStt- 

^•r. z*sr Tuani me if jib iJfiwamjB ^*r ji 

" Vp-frm , 2 f TLl& ^a- TTCTr TESQ^ X -^OTT^Sy ZPT s^jibsquhic 

lesiii^ iferoil 3sr^-^ -L Hl^ cg -ir ^ J““^ 

iii ^ gg^ £ 5ir 'n*imp^ oe 21 s lasESr-TaR jl 

BTTiiiix ■«ti£l X Tn.'^TiiiraJEP Bj-c^ :bji: ;S5Sf ^cr iwtB or x :?Kr^ 

Ttr^ X- C^iJ3i£?i- Te jc ^3P sxne t me 2 ns jnyjur^ te 

~»T‘^ Ti ffiTy SF te ?nT 2er 'hmtih^ 


_Mrr»?»!TiDJtT li^r Tie ~nw ie JBrKiraML 211 2£s Tfr«apf 

lise! "wae ^ iac^ ^ xee 

Xr^ Xl^r^!r3r»rtC lUilsr-L 3fe» iiS^TMeS: it aa^ 

stT 'rtiu’^ -r^Titiu Tie iiCTa: Bi^aicss^ X’lot \ic? ^^ ws a puflp Tt 33e titsss 

3!^' X1t\c 3IUC5 TTETMIt E*4»J2L w? ’ll lOH vXiIttMi. XlifeitL. 

Tie i-ccTis;i /c :Se y^CTucaZ jr 

r:«:«E 4sii ':ee?t ^ ^ie T/ Ostt- 

HiSTie «t &:3eaxs^?n»< te Tie 0 »i»«to xi»E 

3fr. MiI>K!tne^ Teenrissea: rrisn. ObtenM liicjeirnje'' t/ 

riect ':a» 1?^ 'Ji' 

Tia»^ >^r Tie'V-SOTiii Xr XH^irrx&’m^Bcmeir >e W ^ 
is^ inaiBi T. irii? r ^ v^c Ctecs: >^%isa: ie-Z TIjic X' 

IVcmxi Tie 5?*^ ?es ^ -jetie^i Tient 

iec.ce. >tTC Wr 'mci ^ai>E 

Xr^ X^'etrais^ itr^ic lije 5 ^ Tieiit 't- ^ ^ 

'er:fc> TXTje^ i#*eir TI' ^l^lX&iiX ^ St ?bTJir\;^liWk^ 

«sS' Mt^T ^ 

5^.Tve< '>»c»eett Xr. X.'^lV'rrtecr «hi Xaliitr ^>»ec^ tevix. ^ >p ivV^e 

lirve wst!^ TE w >3aw«r w r^euv 

XvlEbiu: 5 tijoer 

r^mtrx .>cXr< K ifcSiiev w 
H JT’/* — 

























66 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 

The select committee found (Kept., p. 60) that Mr. McDermott 
‘‘knew of the employment of McMichael by Mulhall, and that he 
understood what Mulhall was engaged in; that is, that he was a 
lobbyist for the N. A. M.” It thus convicts him of having guiltj 
knowledge that an employee of the House was in the pay of a notori¬ 
ous lobbyist, dangerously near another violation of law. It found, 
moreover (Kept., p. 61), that Mr. McDermott did at times make 
loans from McMichael, knowing that the latter had received the 
money from Mulhall. To term this, as did the select committee, 
“ an act of impropriety ” is certainly putting it mildly. 

Finally, there is the charge that Mr. McDermott, througfb Mc- 
■ Michael, gave advance information to Mulhall as to the proposed 
offering of an eight-hour amendment to the sundry civil bill, in 1910, 
by Kepresentatives Hughes. This charge was made by Mulhall and 
substantiated in all essential pairticulars by McMichael (pp. 417,428). 


VIEWS OF MR. FITZHENRY. 


As a member of the Committee on the Judiciary I concur in the 
findings and conclusions contained in the majority report, except I 
dissent from the conclusion that the House of Representatives is 
without power to pass a resolution denouncing the conduct of the 
officers and agents of the National Manufacturers’ Association, as 
shown by the record and report of the Select Lobby Investigating^ 
Committee. 

There is a wide difference between the House of Representatives 
expressing its opinion concerning a line of conduct of individuals at 
previous Congresses and an attempt to punish individuals for con¬ 
tempt of the House of a former Congress by requiring a respondent 
to suffer punishment. 

The majority report of the committee finds that the conduct of the 
officers and agents of the National Manufacturers’ Association was 
reprehensible in the extreme, but for a lack of power declines to rec¬ 
ommend the adoption of a resolution. Yet, in the same report, a 
Member of this House is found guilty of conduct unbecoming a 
Member of the House and the adoption of a resolution of censure of 
that Member is recommended. 

It seems to me that if we have jurisdiction over the case of Mr. 
McDermott—and nobody seriously questions it—we must necessarily 
have sufficient jurisdiction over the entire subject matter to at least 
say that the House strongly disapproves of the conduct of the Na¬ 
tional Manufacturers’ Association’s officers and agents, which to a 
large degree is the basis of the charge that Mr. McDermott is guilty 
of conduct unbecoming a Member of the House. 

The subcommittee of the Committee on the Judiciary to which this 
matter was referred made a very thorough investigation of the entire 
record in the case, and in its report to the full committee said: 

Your subcommittee have carefully considered the testimony, report, and find¬ 
ings of the select committee in regard to the lobby activities and operations of 
the National Association of Manufacturers. The record discloses that this 
association, through its duly constituted agent, M. M. Mulhall, secretly em¬ 
ployed and placed on the pay roll of the association I. H. McMichael, chief page 
of the House, and paid him a stipulated salary of $30 per month, which con¬ 
temptible transaction was sanctioned by the chief officers of said association. 
The testimony show’s that at the beginning of a new Congress the officers of 
this association attempted, by surreptitious means, to control the organization 
and the personnel of certain committees of the House and the subcommittees 
thereof in the interest of their association, and in some instances their agent, 
Mulhall, boasted that they had done so. The testimony shows that they took 
an active and vigorous part in congressional campaigns, taking a lively interest 
in the reelection of Members who had favored them, and resorted to question¬ 
able and disreputable means to bring about the defeat of Members who had not 
approved their policies. The testimony shows that large sums of money were 
expended in these congressional campaigns and that they extended their cam- 

67 



68 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 


paign activities into various districts throughout the country. Their methods 
w'^ere secretive, reprehensible, and disreputable, and deserve the severest con¬ 
demnation by this House. 

We therefore submit the following resolution and recommend its adoption: 

^^Resolvcd, Tliat the House strongly condemns the conduct of the officers and 
agents of the National Association of Manufacturers, namely, J. Philip Byrd, 
John Kirby, jr., James A. Emory, and M. M. Mulhall, in carrying on improper 
and reprehensible lobby activities and in engaging in systematic secret and 
disreputable practices against the honor, dignity, and integrity of the House of 
Representatives, as disclosed in the testimony taken by and in the report and 
findings of the select committee appointed under House resolution 198.” 

The subcommittee’s views upon this branch of the case are sound, 
in my judgment, and I feel that the House should adopt the resolu¬ 
tion proposed. 

If it be true that the House of Kepresentatives is without precedent 
for this action, one should be created for the guidance of future Con¬ 
gresses in similar situations. 

Louis FitzHenry. 


J 


1 1 





r 



VIEWS OF MR. M.CCOY ON THE GARRETT RESO¬ 
LUTION OF DECEMBER 9, 1913. 


Mr. MacDonald, of Michigan, a member of the select committee 
^pointed under House resolution 198, when he appeared before the 
Judiciary Committee, made a statement, in answer to Mr. Dyer, a 
member of the Judiciary Committee, as follows: 

Mr. Dyer. Is it your idea, as a member of the select committee which investi¬ 
gated these matters, that this committee is called upon under the resolutions 
which the House has referred to us, to determine and recommend to the House 
definite action? 

Mr. MacDonald. I should say no. I should say that they had imposed a 
great responsibility upon this committee, a responsibility where it naturally 
does not fall. If anyone were called upon to make recommendations in regard 
to exactly what should be done, my opinion is it was our committee, the select 
committee, and it seems rathe unconsciousable to me to ask another committee, 
after our committee went into the investigation, took months in hearing the 
witnesses, having an opportunity to see the witnesses on the stand, and to make 
up our minds more fully than another committee—it does not seem fair to me 
to ask another committee to assume the responsibility of action. 

I agree entirely with Mr. MacDonald, and am of the opinion that 
the Judiciary Committee should do now what in my opinion it ought 
to have done promptly after this matter was referred to it; that is 
to say, I believe that the committee should refer back to the House 
the “ findings and testimony ” referred to it by the Garrett resolution, 
with a report stating the law as to the powers of the House in the 
premises and containing a recommendation that the matter be again 
referred to the select committee with instructions to report findings 
of fact upon which action should be taken and a recommendation as to 
what that action should be. 

I full}^ appreciate that if the course of action above suggested 
should be followed, the Committee on the Judiciary would be criti¬ 
cized by some because its action was not different, and by others 
because it had delayed so long in making such a report to the House. 
It would undoubtedly be claimed that the committee had “ dodged ” 
the issue; but if the course of action suggested would have been right 
in the beginning, it can not be other than right now. 

The Garrett resolution reads as follows: 

Resolved, That the report of the select committee appointed under House 
resolution No. 198, and the findings and testimony, be referred to the Committee 
on the Judiciary, with directions to report to the House at the earliest practica¬ 
ble date what action, if any, should be taken by the House thereon. 

It is uncertain what the House intended to have the committee 
do under this resolution. That is to say— 

1. Whether the House wished the members of the committee to 
read all the testimony that had been taken before the select com¬ 
mittee, and filling over 2,900 printed pages, in order to make up 

69 



70 CHARGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY AOTIVITIES. 

their minds what the facts were, treating the so-called facts of the 
select committee as advisory; or, 

2. To consider the findings of the select committee as final, pro¬ 
vided there was testimony to support them; or, 

3. To consider the so-called findings as final, so far as they go, and 
to read the testimony to ascertain whether other findings of fact 
should be made. 

Entertaining the view in regard to the course which should be 
followed by the Committee on the Judiciary which I have expressed 
above, I have not followed any one of these three courses. I have not 
followed the first course for the reason that I did not see the wit¬ 
nesses who testified before the special committee and, therefore, 
should not have known what weight to give to the statements made 
by them. Every lawyer knows how essential it is to a proper con¬ 
sideration of testimony in the first instance, in order to reach a cor¬ 
rect conclusion as to the facts, to see the witnesses. The select com¬ 
mittee in reaching its conclusions of fact was influenced by such 
appearance, as is shown at page 12, where the majority of that 
committee say: 

All of tliese were reluctant and unwilling witnesses. It was with the great¬ 
est difficulty that they could be brought to relate the most simple facts, and 
their manner and appearance while testifying were such as to create a dis¬ 
tinctly unpleasant and unfavorable impression upon the committee. After a 
number of hours of difficult examination, however, your committee finally 
elicited the following information: 

And, again, on page 13: 

The evidence as to the amount raised by these three men to be used in con¬ 
nection with this legislation and the manner in which it was expended is by 
no means clear or satisfactory. There seemed a manifest desire to evade the 
inquiry in this regard, and it was with the greatest difficulty that your com¬ 
mittee extracted sufficient testimony to obtain an intelligent impression. 

Mr. MacDonald stated before the Committee on the Judiciary 
what his opinion was as to the necessity of seeing the witnesses in 
order to be able to reach a correct decision on the facts. What he 
said is found at page 22 of the Hearings before the Committee on 
the Judiciary and reads as follows: 

And it seems rather unconscionable to me to ask another committee, after 
our committee went into the investigation, took months in hearing the wit¬ 
nesses, having an opportunity to see the witnesses on the stand and to make 
up our minds more fully than another committee—it does not seem fair to me 
to ask another committee to assume the responsibility of action. 

In my opinion no member of the Judiciary Committee is or can 
be in a position with fairness to those who are accused, to himself, 
or to the House of Representatives, to state to the House what are 
the ultimate facts upon which action should be taken or upon the 
basis of which the House might decide not to take action. 

I did not adopt the second course, because if the select committee 
has made what may properly be termed findings of fact, then it is 
for the Members of the House themselves to determine after the 
matter has been argued on the floor of the House, whether or not 
there is evidence to support these findings. 

The reasons for not following the first and second courses, both 
apply in the case of the third course above suggested. 

That some of the members of the Committee on the Judiciary 
have followed one of the courses above outlined, some another, and 


CHAEGES AGAINST HOUSE MEMBERS AND LOBBY ACTIVITIES. 71 

some still the third course, will, I believe, become apparent when 
the matter comes up for consideration in the House, and if such be 
the case the result will be confusion, and the matter is one of too 
serious import to run the risk of confusion. It is with the idea 
of having the matter come before the House in the shape in which 
it can be moso intelligently acted upon that I have made and shall 
urge the adoption of the above suggestion. 

I regret to have to disagree with a majority of the committee, and 
m '»re especiahy so because of the fact that one of its members, 
namely, the chairman of the subcommittee to which the matter was 
referied, Mr. Floyd of Arkansas, has given to the consideration of 
the rnattfer that conscientious and painstaking attention which char¬ 
acterizes all his work. 

I agree with the majority of the committee in its view of the law 
expressed in the majority report. 

I recommend the adoption of a resolution reading as follows: 

Resolved, That the report of the select committee appointed under House 
resolution No. IDS, and the findings and testimony, be referred back to the 
select committee with directions to report to the House at the earliest prac¬ 
ticable date, findings of fact and a recommendation as to what action, if any, 
should be taken by the House thereon. 


Walter I. McCoy. 


% • 




. 


St 


• # 

• 

1 

rT. 

.«■ ft ft 


. .. 

r 

fc-" 

L(. ;, 

1 

4 

i/.l : • 


#- • r 

i ,' * . ‘ • / 

ft i« > . * • 

'* . .. 

!» , f 

* ; 1 * . 4 

-c ' 

r- 

i?» 

‘ ^ • ’ 
J, fi /-•' 

/ t*' 

% 

i'- 

nr.w ' 

>T 

r ♦ 

r * # 

i^' 

» ft 

10 If'O 

m 


- 70 : • ; ; 




j'i 


• * • ‘ 1 • 
« k 


/ 

^ ♦ 


,'..-);j-xr f /': r ^-J;- 

, ^ C iij {if . .'? ':‘s i 'l\:\ 

■'t hnu Jr'l-- . r -> r ‘ TlijR, 


f • 
• • 


M 


i * • . ft -.^ 


it 

.,7 vt -I 

. di • -i ■ li ■' J »■• I"' J » , f t ^ . 

' t.;: >■ 

, , 'f 


. ,• T 

• ip. ♦ 



■» r ■ 


/% 


-r 


V ;l :■ ■ -rr 


^ <i-‘ 


> f.v:. 


i 


' 7 t'* ■ ■ # 't' ' ^ . 

> * in Xj * J 


« 


« r 

i 

f 


I 


f * 

. f ' 


A. 


i ft • - 


^ I f 


I .*> . 


r"* I 

. \ I. 


<r 

' f 


. \ . 


. .1 


VA 


4 ^ 


r:^-V{»vv 


r 


? .... 




- '• ^ ^ ji^ TT 

’■** >». ? ^ '.> 

t# =4^ 






v: •. t; 




- •» 


:i 



. ••i; r r^viL''y:>^' 

- - *-* :r 


’..K 




T. l; 


■ ■j 


4 . 


t\r 


r''< 


■v>i^: 




.* 1 




/ 


' 

♦ f' 

■ • '■ V 

^\: ^ f "1 * ^ 

. r’* ' f/ ; i > rr 1 , ';'y*! 

• ft*< • .# ^ 1 ' 4 . ' / ft. 

1 ’ ' * .■? ' 

,■ • ,■ 

; i;.- ; ■’ 

I 

^ I 

m \ 

r-r h; -to . 

- # ;* ^ 4 . • 

«. • ^ 

i*; 

■• -« 

1 

•nr-js- 

V-IS'* • •,.4 -"rV 

w 

*. » 'ft . 

■ * - > 1*5 

1 

• ^ 

: 

:• •) '1 ■ *'"} :■ •.■••■fOii 

^^“77 

«*ilf <•“ • ■'' ■' 

' Oi : ; fin ^ 

•4 

1 

iVf#« J.'. i ;? <.. . 1 

^ * 

1' 7 . 'ii ' . 

f u J ; • " ^ . t • 

if 

i- ■• , . 

ft 1 . 

, '■;• r*jVv><i 

■; tM; :. 'V - 

V 

.: ‘>v'i .4:x t; '• ' J •>.- • '* 
^ t 

7 .V 


* ’' 

• . . k 


— I f .- 

% « 

V^5-_ i • 

t 

, 7i 

#• •< 
4 

^ , 

'»•! • ■-’t 

’* • 

Mirt :»- 

V" o 


ft 

'Vil. .:• 

-• ')•■. 
4 ^ ' »• 

* A ‘ 

^ • U» f?.f ' 

'■■ *•' *'.'> 

•* 

*“» « « 

( 


A - • 


' ^ ■ A*.- — 


'^-i' - 
o^- 

e.. 

. 

•^v;« •. 

• a « 

4 V 

■ ■-.• ^ 


» 

> N 

. * ’ 4i; ■ •-• 

.T' .. . i 

I * 

• % 


•e . 

*■’• . ' 4 

» ’■ f 

* * •X 

■ 1 

^ ^ ^ • 

« 

< 



r • k “• 







«>ft 


u ■ 


-V. 








.:k 




I I •> 


i i ■ -- 




A 


^ I 


; <■ 






ji<j ■ 






■ “i 

*• 


( . 




* f 

\ 


V- 

» 

\ 

vft 




^ * if* 

« 


I 


K 


#-. n 


•:; 




LBAo’U 






\ 


• < 




r>- 


jSJit ii ..Vj 



■■ • 

t-'*. .I'-’h,. > 











t-' '"•‘Win • t ' ifpnf. *■ 

- 3 ^ 4 X /" ‘ 

PBf' 


v^' r'jr. 


1 » -% 4. '-t * 

'J^ .*'• ' 

■: - 


'^- 


, - .t •. '< A-. ,. M 

;• -•'J^ fV-! . f; '3 

V'^ S’ 




<■ ■>• 


A Sill 


w . 

.T» 



r - .» 


w.'^f in^ ■' - * •■ 


<.• 






« « 


- * 




:vl 




V. y ♦ 

•*-* >»’ 

4 B. ^ 


1 •- • 

i ..4 

kV — ' 



•y 




" %. 



r-m 



> « 


•-■■•■V.*'.r.55'rxr 

4 ’•» Ij 



» •* 


-' ' • ■ * *'• '14' 1 ’ X A- 





';» 


■'.» 'V 


« « 


Iv M • 




"V^ -i- 'i 

' • •' rr* sTf/rm ' , , ' * w ' • - : * 




Itr, 

, '.. . ty o». '. ,, ■» 

- • i. ' 




jWt rfr n P-"| J" _ » m . •■ s ■ »■ 

H v ^.V .^jbE^ 4 "•, * ’ i ■ 

;;• ■ ■ •.;,^- . .‘i 






■ y -t.., 

r 




•'#. : ,.' *-*¥ " ■*- ^ , V *•. ■'.•, ■rv;.-- ' _I 

f-.''- . ■ •■- . .'-1^™-'- -'r? . ' ■' I"'' 

■ V- bi '■■ ‘■.”i'-'_^^ ■. ■ ‘ „. .'^■?.l!!p'.' ' 

_..v .. _ ■ 'BlRS» ■- ■ <v •■ 


• \v-' w 

- vTM • S4 •. 

'/, / ?r '■ f* 


'■;k 








«t 


/ » 


. . .V 


. # 


•■.X' :\ 

- . .V.. **■ • /i 
■ V ■''■'■'• 


', '* • 


^4- 


« • 


I,' 


.nCv^ * 





V V 


'ii 




♦ 'r 


M ** 


' *. . »• 


•\ ‘ * 


4#^' ^ 


1 •r ' * • ' • • 

C ii..’ vV4£' t 


VA • 


■ f 


^1 


» V 1 • I 




M, 


>1. 


t ♦ 


* « 









-'i 





. ,■ :■'*** *• 


■■' 'I *■■»'.> 

r 




• i 


*• ^ ' 


ii' 


4.-‘ 






■V. 


'.• '\V-' 


• I :* _ f - i -4vw 

.•i t - • “tff aU »A.' 






<• * 




” r. 


-■ 1 


/', < •» fz I« - ^ tj 


^ « 


i/. 




V •*'< 




V- ^'* • ■ 

* *v 



/ f 




• ^ 


■(sS 


•V' ’* ■ . 


' •* 



'r . 



■ I 


'f. 


r 




4 ;■■ 

; ', 'j^' ■ 


/ 


I -i 


li. 




i” ‘ 


.i J ♦ • 





• V-’, , ,(V / 


“r', •/-A 

•; • ‘V' ^ 



' 4 


♦• v 


-w:;.• ■ ■ 



■:/- 
4^' 

i!»r'' 

» •:« V. 


'V . 


- . • . . 2 
. • *■ : - ,■** 


.» ^ . -3 




> » 






y? y ■' . -j :V 

* .. '-ow ' 


'H 


r I t , 


\v 


1. 


.-. I* 


*;• 


1 ■. 


;:5 




(• 


.V* 




> 

.■ L 



•• ^ u 




;:. , ■■■■ •• 


■■■ 


' 7. •'*■ . V 'iH • t MW 

• ‘ ‘ .Til' JFX;, 


•* x» 



i', »V! 

‘ \3‘: * ■ <■ : * 

r*"' '’'*>■ i- ■ ‘ ^ r' / ’. * ■ 

‘ V ,, ’ . ‘ .*■ ?.'.. . ' . ■ ,.' 



/ 


*..' '-l 


. <1 





•7,’•T»J 

iw 


I * . 0 /V** ' ■ * ilf* - 

‘ ' ' » i}'^ X . V *4 ‘ "i 

'"'i uV ';, '^IP 


.. 1((1 ■• .',■■ ■• ■■!. : w * 

. • i . 


1 . 








r-'-.' •- ^ ^ • -'- J 



/ * . 


■^‘ '4^*^ ', , ,^'V ovilft 


l-.;:v. .A':- . 

Br. ._. . M r*M 

tit 




>i ^ ^ - /^..vk•.V'lVi '.V ■.^^> 






















